Sentences I wasn't expecting to read today:
The majority concluded that it was not, and that the hapless author of the drawing should not be subjected to probation and “work crew”.
One of the three judges dissented, claiming among other things that the image constituted “a sexually explicit image of a minor”. Often when I read court opinions, both sides seem to have reasonable arguments. This time I think the dissenter is confused, and perhaps doesn't understand Snapchat. (The judges couldn't see the actual picture; it had expired.)
The Colorado Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal.