OK, let's look at this. And thank you for your patience in trying to determine the actually charge.

I have been a stage 4 (highest) professional lawyer with the Company for nearly 4 years, and enjoy giving top knotch answers to all of my customers. I am happy to share with you my decades of experience as I donate my time here.

Please remember to only rate my answer when you are 100% satisfied with my diligence and effort in accordance with your chosen transaction. Until then, please stop and REPLY to me via the CONTINUE CONVERSATION button with the question concern you may still have. I will be happy to continue further and do everything I can to provide you with the service you seek.


That all being said, since it is People of Co. v. YOU, so we know we are dealing with a State charge (not a local ordinance); however, your code section does not appear in CO's Penal Code, so I believe we are missing something there. But, below I post the charge where injury to property as a crime is located. I also post the penalties, that depend on the value of the damage:

With regard to your question:

I received a summons for injury to property as a result of a person blocking my garage and preventing me from leaving my home. My only offenses prior to this summons was three traffic tickets given over a 20 year period. If found guilty will i have a record and can i face jail time.Yes, you will have a record and YES, you can face jail time. See below:

COLORADO REVISED STATUTES
*** THIS DOCUMENT REFLECTS CHANGES CURRENT THROUGH ALL LAWS PASSED AT THE FIRST REGULAR SESSION OF THE 68TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF COLORADO ***
TITLE 18. CRIMINAL CODE
ARTICLE 4. OFFENSES AGAINST PROPERTY
PART 5. TRESPASS, TAMPERING, AND CRIMINAL MISCHIEF
C.R.S. 18-4-501 (2011)
18-4-501. Criminal mischief



(1) A person who knowingly damages the real or personal property of one or more other persons, including property owned by the person jointly with another person or property owned by the person in which another person has a possessory or proprietary interest, in the course of a single criminal episode commits

a class 2 Misdemeanor where the aggregate damage to the real or personal property is less than five hundred dollars.

Where the aggregate damage to the real or personal property is five hundred dollars or more but less than one thousand dollars, the person commits a class 1 misdemeanor.

Where the aggregate damage to the real or personal property is one thousand dollars or more but less than twenty thousand dollars, the person commits a class 4 felony.

Where the aggregate damage to the real or personal property is twenty thousand dollars or more, the person commits a class 3 felony.

(2) and (3) Repealed.
..."
http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/Colorado/

[AND HERE IS SOME RELEVANT CASE LAW - NOTE THE INTENT TO DAMAGE IS NEEDED - IF YOUR INTENT WAS NOT TO DAMAGE, BUT TO FREE YOURSELF AFTER YOU WERE UNLAWFULLY ASSAULT/FALSELY IMPRISONED (WHICH TRAPPING YOU COULD BE), I'D ARGUE THAT POINT. I'D ALSO LIKELY SEEK TO HAVE CHARGES PRESSED AGAINST THE PERP WHO FALSELY IMPRISONED OR TRESPASSED UPON YOUR PROPERTY OR ASSAULTED YOU. ]

"This section is criminal, and it is not its province to make simply the intentional doing of an unlawful act, which injures another's property, a crime, independent of any evil purpose or intention. Mayn v. People, 56 Colo. 170, 136 P. 1016 (1913); Koch v. People, 71 Colo. 119, 204 P. 332 (1922); Schtul v. People, 96 Colo. 217, 40 P.2d 970 (1935).

Civil prosecution for same acts prohibited by this section has no part in a prosecution under this section. Mayn v. People, 56 Colo. 170, 136 P. 1016 (1913).

There must exist criminal intention. In a prosecution under this section for injury occasioned to a bridge, there can be no conviction, unless a criminal intention on the part of the accused appears. Mayn v. People, 56 Colo. 170, 136 P. 1016 (1913); Schtul v. People, 96 Colo. 217, 40 P.2d 970 (1935).

Criminal intent need not be expressly proved in criminal mischief cases, but may be implied or inferred from the surrounding facts and circumstances or from the relation existing between the defendant and the owner of the property injured or destroyed. Schtul v. People, 96 Colo. 217, 40 P.2d 970 (1935).

It must be the direct and not incidental object of an act. Neither the mere concealment of the crime, the omitting of the performance of a statutory duty, nor the mere intentional doing of an act prohibited by statute, constitutes criminal mischief, although it may damage the property of another. A conspiracy with a fraudulent or malicious intent wrongfully to injure the property of another is punishable. The mischief must be the direct object of the act, and not incidental to some other lawful or unlawful act, or must be the natural consequence of the act. Schtul v. People, 96 Colo. 217, 40 P.2d 970 (1935).

Abandonment is no defense to completed crime of criminal mischief. People v. Johnson, 41 Colo. App. 220, 585 P.2d 306 (1978).

The damage element in criminal mischief relates to economic loss caused by the knowing infliction of damage to the real or personal property of another. People v. Dunoyair, 660 P.2d 890 (Colo. 1983).

Value is an essential element of felony criminal mischief. People v. Cisneros, 193 Colo. 380, 566 P.2d 703 (1977).

Theft distinguished. The gravamen of criminal mischief is the knowing causation of damage to another's property with resulting economic loss to the owner or possessor of the property. The crime of theft, in contrast, is a crime of Misappropriation or wrongful taking with no added element of damage or destruction to the property taken. People v. Dunoyair, 660 P.2d 890 (Colo. 1983).

Value is relevant to the damage element because an offender cannot cause an economic loss that surpasses the actual value of the property damaged. People v. Dunoyair, 660 P.2d 890 (Colo. 1983).

Actual value will generally be determined by market value, that is, the price a willing buyer would pay for the object in the open market. People v. Dunoyair, 660 P.2d 890 (Colo. 1983); People v. Dobson, 847 P.2d 176 (Colo. App. 1992).

Unless there is no market for the item. Where, however, there is no market for the particular item, then such factors as the original purchase price, replacement cost, the general use and purpose of the article, and salvage value may be considered as some evidence of actual value. People v. Dunoyair, 660 P.2d 890 (Colo. 1983); People v. Dobson, 847 P.2d 176 (Colo. App. 1992).

The crime of criminal mischief is not a lesser included burglary offense because the elements are far different. While criminal mischief requires damage to property, burglary does not. People v. Cisneros, 193 Colo. 380, 566 P.2d 703 (1977).

The pulling up of one or more posts of a fence in process of erection warrants a conviction under this section. Olson v. People, 56 Colo. 199, 138 P. 21 (1914).

This section does not apply to the pulling down of a fence by defendant, erected across land claimed by him and in his possession without his consent. Koch v. People, 71 Colo. 119, 204 P. 332 (1922).

Police officer's undisputed Testimony of estimated damage is admissible at a Preliminary Hearing. People ex rel. Russel v. Hall, 620 P.2d 34 (Colo. 1980).

Evidence held sufficient to sustain a conviction. People v. O'Donnell, 184 Colo. 434, 521 P.2d 771 (1974).

Evidence held insufficient to sustain a conviction. Schtul v. People, 96 Colo. 217, 40 P.2d 970 (1935).

For instructions on previously required element of malice, see People v. Woods, 179 Colo. 441, 501 P.2d 117 (1972).

Instruction on intentional conduct not plain error. An instruction that the culpable mental state for criminal mischief is intentional conduct does not constitute plain error as intentional conduct is a higher degree of culpability than the knowing conduct required by this section, and, therefore, the erroneous instruction actually benefits the defendant. People v. Founds, 631 P.2d 1166 (Colo. App. 1981).

Self-defense instruction inappropriate for charge of criminal mischief where case involved unreasonable or excessive force by police during an arrest. Although self-defense instruction is required when evidence has been presented that officers displayed weapons and were commanded to discharge them in course of effecting arrest and that their conduct was unreasonable or excessive under the circumstances, such instruction was not appropriate as to charge of criminal mischief arising from events after defendant was taken into custody. People v. Fuller, 781 P.2d 647 (Colo. 1989).

Applied in Corder v. People ex rel. Smiley, 87 Colo. 251, 287 P. 85 (1930); Schindelar v. Michaud, 411 F.2d 80 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 956,XXXXX 426, 24 L. Ed.2d 420 (1969); People v. Griffith, 197 Colo. 544, 595 P.2d 231 (1979); People v. Trujillo, 631 P.2d 146 (Colo. 1981); People ex rel. Hunter v. District Court, 634 P.2d 44 (Colo. 1981); People v. Stoppel, 637 P.2d 384 (Colo. 1981); People v. Holloway, 649 P.2d 318 (Colo. 1982); People v. Thompson, 655 P.2d 416 (Colo. 1982). "

AND, your penalties can be:

Less than $500	Class 2 Misdemeanor	3 months to 1 year in jail and $250 to $1,000 in fines.
$500 to $1,000	Class 1 Misdemeanor	6 to 18 months in jail and $500- $5,000 in fines.
$1,000 to $20,000	Class 4 Felony	2 to 6 years in prison and $2,000 to $500,000 in fines.
More than $20,000	Class 3 Felony	4 to12 years in prison and $3,000 to $750,000 in fines.

http://www.criminalpropertydamage.com/colorado/


I would DEFINITLY fight this.

-------

I hope this clarifies and I wish you the best.

Please remember to only rate my answer when you are 100% satisfied with my diligence and effort, and will click a button to the RIGHT. IF you feel the need to click either of the two stars on the left, please stop and REPLY to me via the CONTINUE CONVERSATION button with the issue you have. I will be happy to continue further and do everything I can to provide you with the service you seek.

If you do CONTINUE CONVERSATION, If I do not respond right away, please know that I am diligently working here on your question and I will be back as soon as possible, after engaging in any necessary and prudent confirming research to ensure that no recent legal changes have occurred that would effect your answer.

Please also know that your expressed satisfaction with my answer is my top priority, and my time here today with you supports my volunteer work for the Disabled in the U.S.

Only a positive rating on the right side of the choices is acceptable to me, AND unless you so rate me, I am given no credit for time and effort - so please rate accurately with that fact in mind. I have been a stage 4 (highest) professional here for 4 years, and enjoy giving top knotch answers. While I can not provide crystal ball answers and am not a psychic, I am happy to share with you my 17+ years of experience as I donate my time here.

You can ask for me directly in the future by starting your post with "To Alexia Esq."

Repeat reminder: Due to rules of our states, nothing herein is intended as legal advice, only intended as general information in order that you may have a starting point for helping yourself and and better pursuing the details you need.