Steamboat Springs hotel room search reveals 149 grams of methamphetamine



Routt County Sheriff's Office/courtesy

Cory Alexander Sohonyay

— Police say they found 149 grams of methamphetamine Wednesday in a Steamboat Springs hotel room where a 40-year-old man was staying.

Cory Alexander Sohonyay was arrested at about 5:30 a.m. Wednesday on an unrelated arrest warrant for failing to appear in court. Once he was taken into custody, officers with the All Crimes Enforcement Team drug task force got a search warrant for a room at the Holiday Inn of Steamboat Springs as well as a motorcycle. A judge has sealed the search warrant, so details about the ACET investigation are not known.

ACET Commander Marvin Cameron wrote in an arrest affidavit that he searched a backpack in Sohonyay’s hotel room and found two bags containing 5.2 ounces of a substance that later tested positive as methamphetamine. Investigators think Sohonyay was going to sell the drug.

The search also revealed a prescription bottle with about 50 pain pills.

The Routt County District Attorney’s Office has formally filed charges against Sohonyay. He has been charged with possession with intent to manufacture or distribute a controlled substance, a Class 3 felony. He also was charged with possession of a controlled substance, a Class 6 felony related to the oxycodone.

Sohonyay appeared before Routt County Judge James Garrecht on Thursday by video conference.

Routt County Chief Deputy District Attorney Rusty Prindle argued a high bond should be set, partly because of Sohonyay’s 17-page criminal history that included a 1997 methamphetamine drug trafficking conviction that led to a prison term.

Prindle also argued Sohonyay was a danger to the community because of the methamphetamine police say they found in his hotel room.

“Mr. Sohonyay was about to introduce that drug into our community,” Prindle said.

Sohonyay asked that a reasonable bond be set so he could possibly post it and take care of personal matters before facing the consequences related to the charges.

“I’m not a threat to anyone except myself,” Sohonyay said.

Garrecht set his bond at $300,000 and told Sohonyay to get a lawyer.

“The charges you are facing have some significant consequences, so the sooner you can get an attorney, the better off you will be,” Garrecht said.

Sohonyay is due back in court at 1 p.m. Wednesday.

To reach Matt Stensland, call 970-871-4247 or email

Join the Yampa Valley VIP email club

Yampa Valley VIP


zak ryan 3 years, 9 months ago

Ya tweekers suck. Glad that didnt make it to the streets. Have fun in prison.


Cresean Sterne 3 years, 9 months ago

“I’m not a threat to anyone except myself,” Sohonyay said. Sounds like you were abut to sell the drugs into Stmbt, which makes you a threat to the community..For a 40 yr old, the guy looks 55- 60 and weathered..Sad how drugs can realy mess a person up..


mark hartless 3 years, 9 months ago

Seventeen pages of criminal history and this guy is still on the streets???

I'd say that Sohonyay had an accomplice.

Specifically liberals, leftists and their decades-long resistant attitude toward actually punishing crime helped this man tremendously.

Which leads me to repeat my primary question; one to which I have never gotten a decent answer:

Is there anything, anywhere, at any time, that in the face of irrefutable, incontrovertible evidence, which will ever... I mean EVER make a liberal feel like the SUCKER that they are???

Seventeen pages and now he's selling meth to your kids... SUCKERS...


mark hartless 3 years, 9 months ago

Well now, assaulting someones name (literally) is certainly not "name-calling" is it? BTW Christopher, why did you choose the name YOU have???


mark hartless 3 years, 9 months ago

It improves their site by giving people like you a "villain". With me out there leftists can ignore meth dealers, drunk driving sheriffs, politicians that like to remove their clothes on Twitter, etc and you all can focus on the "real" problem in Routopia... "name-calling".


Brian Kotowski 3 years, 9 months ago

Faces of meth. Discretion advised. The longer it goes the nastier it gets.


mark hartless 3 years, 9 months ago


Long answer:

Leftists don't punish crime at this stage of progression in a society; they're too "civilized" and "cultured"... so they like to think.

Instead they make excuses for crime (poverty, rascism, inequality).

Their leaders propose "solutions" that make practically everything a crime, and sit back and wait for the sheeple to demand that government "do something".

The "solution" government then offers is to by-pass legal protection for the population at large (ie gut The Constitution) so that law enforcement can better "get to" the criminals.

By this stage of a democracy the sheeple are so ignorant of the importance of their own freedom (and pretty much everything else of historical significance) that they gladly acquiesce.

Pretty soon damn near everything is illegal (guns, drugs, freedom of association, even the act of "hate") but it does no good because the laws are selectively enforced, keeping the criminals on the streets while allowing authorities to go about bullying citizens that pose a percieved threat to the establishment.

It is from just past this pointwhere we are in America today that the populace at large demands even more "action".

Somewhere in the not-to distant American future is where dictatorships historically spring up, and the people are so overwhelmed by the problems that were actually caused intentionally by the governing elite that they welcome that dictatorship into power. (Read Dostoyevsky's "Grand Inquisitor" for example")

"Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it".

Respectfully, M.


Scott Wedel 3 years, 9 months ago

So you have decided what other people think and then show what a silly way that is to think.

But your description of what other people think is a caricature of your creation and not the actual thought processes of those you denigrate so freely.

The funniest part of that rant is the claim that everything including guns are illegal. A comment of such hyperbole that somehow preventing felons and the mentally ill from buying guns and outlawing the sale of new large magazines is described as generally making guns illegal.

In a similar vein, driving and cars were recently made illegal in SB when the speed limit on Yampa St was set to 15 mph. Since it is possible to use a car to drive and break the law then in Mark's worldview, that is the same as making cars and driving illegal.


mark hartless 3 years, 9 months ago

How many laws are on the books Scott?

More than a decade ago or fewer?

More then than the decade before that, or fewer?

More people walking the streets with 17 pages of criminal history than 20 years ago, or fewer?

You, Scott are a perfect example of someone who thinks they are too "civilized and cultured" to allow such barbaric things as capital punishment, harsh prison sentances, even spanking children... all wrong in your book; yet the society which geniuses like you have been engineering for decades is crumbling.

It was the same sort of "wisdom" that kicked God out of schools and look what has filled the vacuum. The same crowd that carried that water insisted Detroit could continue to write ckecks it couldn't cash and look what happened to the the city that Obama's bailout was supposed to "save".

Your notions sound so lofty and wise, but an honest glance at the real world proves them to be almost entirely wrong.


Bob Smith 3 years, 9 months ago

Sadly Mark is one of those individuals that will in all likelihood spend the rest of his life living with a very treatable disorder - one that has quite a good prognosis when medication and cognitive-behavioral therapy are used concurrently. However, Mark's extreme paranoia combined with a somewhat phobic view of psychotropic medications in general makes the likelihood of Mark actually getting adequate treatment very unlikely. However, considering his dial diagnosis - with a secondary personality disorder no less - it's not exactly like therapy would be a cake walk. In general personality disorders can be quite thorny to deal with, and when considering his prognosis "globally", if you will, either way we'd be fighting an uphill battle. So, best to just let him keep making lots of noise. In a perverse way, it's in everyone's best interest.


rhys jones 3 years, 9 months ago

Bob -- Ya know, when I'm down in Phoenix, I'm constantly reminded how lucky I am. In this town, I'm constantly reminded how lucky I am not. These forums remind me, my problems are relatively minor.

Jerry -- Which Tulo will step up next inning? Stay tuned!! Ooo!! He just had a collision. I take back all the bad things I said.


mark hartless 3 years, 9 months ago

Good one Bob.

I fugured you'd want to hit me back for that one I smacked up side your headwith a few days ago...

The likelyhood of me getting ANY treatment, adequate or otherwise, is nil. Due in no small part to the expense and inavailability of "free" healthcare.


John Fielding 3 years, 9 months ago

Mark makes a great number of valid points. The means he uses, however, steal credulity.


mark hartless 3 years, 9 months ago

My means are mean, no? I would probably plead guilty to that...

Credulity endures not in in the gentle kindness, nor in the sharpness of my words, but in reality. I make apologies for neither.


I have been pondering this for a few months... Could someone please help. I will reserve condemnation and welcome all input on the following:

Is it a "sin" to lie to a thief??

And I mean not to call down any specific religious doctrine, just to ask if anyone thinks it's is a "sin", or "wrong" or "dishonorable", etc, to lie to a thief.

Society has, for many centuries, taught that lying was "dishonorable".

So, is it just as "dishonorable" or "sinful" or "wrong" to lie to a thief as it is to lie to... say... a priest, or a nurse, or a nun, or your mother, etc???

Opinions please...


mark hartless 3 years, 9 months ago

So, Jerry... It does not matter with whom you are interacting?

Whether they are good or evil, friend or foe, honest or dis-honest we should still always tell them the complete truth?


John Fielding 3 years, 9 months ago


Truth can be used to hurt. Truth told without tact may be disregarded, thus pointless. That was the basis for my earlier comment.

There are a great many people whose lives have been greatly improved because they believe things they have been told which are not true. Mythology (someone else s creation story) often has been used as the mode of delivery for important truths. There is entire category in the study of religions regarding "pious deceivers", some of whom have founded orders that have helped many people lead more healthy happy and productive lives. Of course the opposite is also true, and many people have been harmed by these same practitioners of deception and their minions.

I leave the term "sinful" aside as too tightly tied to a particular dogma, and refer instead to "honorable". In my opinion the criteria for determining if an action is honorable is whether it helps or hurts, supports good or evil. Intentions are also included to a degree but the actual measure must be of the results.

The individual who is the subject of this article could benefit from some moral guidance and spiritual inspiration, even if it's basis cannot be demonstrated to be literally true.



mark hartless 3 years, 9 months ago


Your statement raises a couple questions.

1. How do we know what will hurt or help someone ahead of time? Would it have been better for someone to tell this man the "whole truth" or to instead tell him some well-meaning tale that, although not true, better serves to inspire him to lead an honorable life?

2. When you say " whether it supporst good or evil", one must assume that this particular individual MIGHT have considered Meth "good", kind of like kids would call 3 sodas and 4 pop-tarts a "good" breakfast. This is especially true if he had people around him for many years telling him "tales" about good and evil rather than absolute facts, no?

Do we tell them the "truth" before or after... and are we being "mean" if we tell that truth boldly, bluntly?

Another question: Are those who turn a blind eye to the kid having pop-tarts and soda for breakfast being "nice" to the kid, or is their willingness to accept his "choices" sentenencing him to a life of poor health?


John Fielding 3 years, 9 months ago

. Mark, in reply, in order asked:

The simplest explanation is most likely to be most effective. Rely on what the reasonable person would do, what the tradition of our civilization accepts, what experience indicates. The 12 step program is a good example.

The instance of a demented individual misidentifying good does not change what is good. Similarly one who is deluded about what is a healthy meal. Tales about good or evil are the means by which teaching and learning are accomplished. The human mind is not born with the capability of understanding "absolute facts", it slowly develops an understanding of concepts then applies them first to external stimulation, later to intuition and logic. Even absolutes an infant can understand, such as light or dark, hungry or fed, later come to be understood as a matter of degrees of a condition.

Do we tell them the truth before or after what?

Mean aside, if we tell the truth badly we are being less than informative because it will not be readily accepted, and bluntly is often badly.

As I was explaining to my adolescent boys today, for the nth time, the process of parenting is a gradual transition from the parent making all the decisions to the offspring making all the decisions. At their age their input should be sought, and respected to the extent that it is at least listened to and discussed. In that process we examine what criteria we use to make decisions, and how we identify which are good decisions. Children who are not taught to make good choices may still recover, many survive poor upbringing and learn later in life to do so. But we as a society certainly ought not to turn a blind eye. The neglect and abuse my boys endured in their birth home as infants still scars their psyches, and makes the task of helping them grow into well adjusted and productive adults much more difficult than the already demanding effort required for raising children in ordinary circumstances in our deteriorating society.



John Fielding 3 years, 9 months ago


"Grasshopper, one day you will be the Master"

"No Master, you must always be the Master"

"No Grasshopper, one day you must be the Master"

"Yes Master"



jerry carlton 3 years, 9 months ago

You elaborated on my position nicely Mark. Do I always do that? No. Jesus Christ is the only human who ever spoke nothing but the truth.


Scott Wedel 3 years, 9 months ago


I think it matters whether or not to what extent honesty is expected.

Testifying in court under oath has the expectation of complete honesty.

Haggling over price in a shop has a low expectation of honesty.

Telling a thief you have proof of guilt so confess and return the stolen items has a low expectation of honesty and could be a bluff. But an officer telling a thief something that is expected to be truthful, such as his parents had an accident and are in the emergency room in order to get a thief to sign a statement before being released to go to the hospital is wrong.


Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.