James Marshall asks court to reduce sentence in shooting of Danny Pruitt

James Marshall Courtesy photo

ALAMOSA — One year and one day after being sentenced in court to serve 11 years in prison for the near-fatal shooting of Danny Pruitt during an Alamosa Black Lives Matter protest in June of 2020, James Marshall, 30, appeared in court on Thursday, this time related to a motion he filed requesting his sentence be reduced from 11 years to four.
District Attorney Anne Kelly was present on behalf of the state and had filed a motion opposing the reduction in sentence.
Four years is the minimum amount of time recommended in the presumptive sentencing range for the class-three felony to which Marshall pleaded guilty.
In a stunning, last-minute plea agreement reached between former DA Alonzo Payne and Marshall’s defense counsel Randy Canney, Payne agreed to drop 10 felony charges, including second-degree attempted murder, in exchange for Marshall pleading guilty to a new charge of tampering with a deceased body — a class three felony that does not involve the use of a firearm and with a sentencing range of four to 24 years.
On June 5, 2020, Marshall — who was a practicing defense attorney in Alamosa, at the time — was at a Black Lives Matter protest held at the intersection of Main Street and State Avenue in Alamosa. Marshall went to the peaceful protest armed with a 9mm Glock, which he used to shoot Pruitt through the back window of his truck, striking Pruitt in the back of the head. Marshall alleges the shooting was in defense of others, including his wife, from Pruitt whom Marshall said was planning to run over the protestors with his truck.
Marshall just finished his first year as an inmate in the Crowley County Correctional Facility, a medium-level security private prison located on the eastern plains of the state.
In the hearing, defense counsel described Marshall’s life in prison as difficult with no opportunity to go to the law library during the hours it is open because of conflicts with his work schedule and a general lack of courses to take, opportunities that are not as available in privately run state prisons as they are in those run by the state. Counsel spoke at length of the things Marshall is doing to help other inmates of his own initiative, including translating documents into Spanish and helping out with clerical duties for the chaplain.
Counsel further stated that, should he be granted a shorter sentence, Marshall would be able to resume being a “productive citizen” and, with significantly greater income opportunities than in prison, the ability to pay Pruitt the money quicker than he is due in restitution.
Marshall’s mother, Sherri Marshall, flew to Colorado to testify on her son’s behalf, telling the judge she has kept in touch with her son and describing the sadness of Marshall not being able to see his grandmother before she died.
Statements from several other character witnesses testifying on Marshall’s behalf were largely a repeat of their testimony at the sentencing hearing, describing Marshall as a compassionate and caring man devoted to the welfare of others. One attorney and former colleague said his law firm is ready to hire Marshall as an attorney the moment he is released from prison.
The Colorado Attorney Regulation Council suspended Marshall’s law license for three years upon his conviction.
When Canney addressed Judge Gilbert Martinez, he emphasized points already made about Marshall’s behavior in prison. He also referenced evidence submitted to the court that supports Marshall’s perception that he felt Pruitt was menacing and threatening the well-being of others, had looked at Marshall with a “malicious grin” — which Marshall interpreted as menacing — and cited instances where Pruitt has shown episodes of threatening and violent behavior since 2020.
Marshall poses no further threat to the community, Canney said, is at little to no risk of recidivism and only wishes to return to society where he can be of assistance and support to others.
Kelly, who was not involved in the prosecution of the case, told the judge she would not have agreed to the plea deal and, had she been prosecuting, would have taken the case to trial on the charge of attempted murder.
She brought up statements from witnesses provided by police immediately following the shooting that described Marshall as being “very angry,” “very loud” and leading chants. She stated that witnesses, some of whom are friends of Marshall’s, initially told the police that Pruitt appeared to just be annoyed and “was not trying to hurt anyone.”
Kelly said that “defense of others is not present in the evidence” and, while acknowledging that Marshall has devoted himself to helping others while in prison, a four-year sentence is not appropriate for shooting someone in the head, adding, if she had been prosecuting, she would have gone for even more than the eleven years Marshall is currently sentenced to serve. Pruitt addressed the court, stating he had no intention of hurting anyone and had never even met Marshall prior to that day. He then said that he continues to struggle with the damage of the shooting, including having nine different bullet fragments in his head that he will carry for the rest of his life.
When Marshall addressed the court, he spoke of the difficulty of life in prison, being “surrounded by gangs” and witnessing violence — some of which had been directed at him and amplified when it was discovered that he didn’t fight back. He also spoke of his efforts to help others, the transformation he feels he has experienced through re-evaluating his life and priorities and he “can’t ask for forgiveness but (he) can make restitution.” the forgiveness he seeks from Pruitt while understanding it will not likely be granted. He asked the court to reduce his sentence and to “not unduly delay me becoming the person I was meant to be.”
Martinez summarized everything he took into consideration in his ruling — the evidence submitted by both the prosecution and the defense, the videos, the statements from character witnesses and descriptions of Marshall’s behavior in prison.
“Four years is totally inappropriate for shooting someone in the head,” he told Marshall. “If you wanted to stop the truck, you don’t aim your gun at the driver, you shoot elsewhere, like the tires. And you don’t shoot someone for a malicious grin. You can pay restitution, but you can’t do anything about what the victim has experienced and will experience for the rest of his life.”
In acknowledgment of the work Marshall has done for others in prison, Martinez agreed to reduce the sentence, but only to 10 years, versus the 11 he’s serving currently.
According to the Department of Corrections website, Marshall will have his first parole hearing in October of 2027 with his estimated date of parole Jan. 1, 2027.
“The decision reflects how much work the defendant has been doing in custody but, fundamentally, I believe he should have gotten more time originally,” Kelly said outside of court. “The harm done to the victim should have reflected a longer sentence. However, I think the court was very well reasoned in his decision today, giving credit to the defendant for taking his sentence seriously.”


Video News