May 23, 2013

You are here: Home / Archives for Department of Corrections

HB 13-1323: Requiring Clarification by Court if Mittimus Does Not Specify Whether Sentences to be Served Consecutively or Concurrently

May 8, 2013 by Leave a Comment

On April 29, 2013, Rep. Claire Levy and Sen. Lucia Guzman introduced HB 13-1323 - Concerning Requiring the Department of Corrections to Obtain Clarification if a Court-Issued Mittimus Omits Instruction Concerning Whether a Defendant’s Sentences are to be Served Consecutively or Concurrently. This summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.

The bill states, as amended, if the state department of corrections (department) receives custody of a defendant who is sentenced to serve two or more terms of incarceration in the custody of the department, and any mittimus concerning the defendant’s sentence or sentences does not clearly indicate whether the defendant’s sentences are to be served consecutively or concurrently, the department shall seek clarification in writing from the court regarding the defendant’s sentence or sentences. The department shall seek such clarification not more than two business days after the department’s receipt of the mittimus.

A court that receives a written request for clarification from the department shall respond to the department and clarify the mittimus in writing not more than two business days after receiving the request. The court shall provide a copy of the court’s response to the counsel of record for the prosecution and the defense.

Until the department obtains clarification of the mittimus from the court, the department shall not make any determination of the defendant’s parole eligibility date or mandatory release date.

Before remitting any mittimus to the department of corrections sentencing a defendant to the custody of the department, a court shall confirm that the mittimus properly reflects the sentencing order of the court and includes all necessary information regarding the sentence and any information as to whether a sentence is to be served concurrent with, or consecutive to, the sentence for any other count or any other case.

The bill was introduced in the House on April 29 and passed out of the Judiciary Committee on April 30. The House approved the bill on 2nd Reading May 2 and the 3rd Reading on May 3. The bill was introduced in the Senate on May 3 and passed out of the Judiciary Committee and 2nd Reading on the same day. The bill awaits 3rd Reading in the Senate on Monday, May 6.

Since this summary, the bill passed Third Reading in the Senate and will be sent to the governor for signature.

Filed Under: Legislation Tagged With: , , , , ,

Colorado Court of Appeals: C.R.S. § 18-3-203(1)(f) Does Not Require Consecutive Sentencing but Court has Discretion to Sentence Consecutively

October 3, 2012 by Leave a Comment

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People v. Diaz on September 27, 2012.

Assault—Consecutive Sentencing—CRS § 18-3-203(1)(f).

Defendant appealed the sentence entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of second-degree assault. The sentence was vacated and the case was remanded to the district court for resentencing.

While serving a sentence on other charges, defendant punched a prison guard in the eye. On a second occasion, he threw a cup that hit a guard in the mouth. The second assault was tried first. Defendant was found guilty, and he was sentenced to ten years in the custody of the Department of Corrections. The next day, defendant was found guilty of the first assault, and he was sentenced to ten years in prison, to be served consecutively to the sentence imposed for the second assault.

On appeal, defendant contended that the district court erred by ruling that CRS § 18-3-203(1)(f) requires that the sentence for the first assault be served consecutively to the sentence for the second assault. CRS § 18-3- 203(1)(f) requires consecutive sentencing only when a defendant is serving a sentence (and not merely confined on unresolved charges) at the time of the assault. Therefore, the district court erred in ruling that the sentence for the first assault must run consecutively to the sentence for the second assault. Nonetheless, the court had discretion to order the sentence for the first assault to run consecutively to the sentence for the second assault. On remand, the court must exercise its discretion in determining whether the sentence for the first assault should be served consecutively to the sentence for the second assault.

Summary and full case available here.

Filed Under: Case Law Tagged With: , , , ,

Governor Hickenlooper Signs Fifteen More Bills Into Law

April 9, 2012 by Leave a Comment

Governor Hickenlooper has signed 111 bills into law this legislative session, including fourteen bills that he signed on Friday, April 6, and one on April 9, 2012. A complete list of the bills he signed Friday can be found here. Five of these bills are highlighted below.

  • HB 12-1181 – Concerning a Supplemental Appropriation to the Department of Corrections
    Sponsored by Rep. Cheri Gerou and Sen. Mary Hodge. This Joint Budget Committee bill changes the appropriations to the Department of Corrections for several services. This was one of three bills from the Joint Budget Committee to be signed by the governor on April 6.
  • HB 12-1229 – Concerning Publication Requirements for a Newspaper In Which a Legal Notice or Advertisement is Printed
    Sponsored by Rep. Carole Murray and Sen. Mark Scheffel. The bill creates a definition for “published” for legal notices that are required to be published in legally recognized newspapers, and creates a contingency for counties that do not have a newspaper.
  • HB 12-1269 – Concerning the Threshold Amount of Campaign Activity By a Candidate Committee In Connection With a Special District Election that Triggers Disclosure Requirements Under the “Fair Campaign Practices Act.”
    Sponsored by Rep. Jim Kerr and Sen. Ellen Roberts. This bill increases the amount that a candidate committee in a special district election must spend in order to trigger reporting requirements under the FCPA.
  • HB 12-1285 – Concerning Modifications to Statutory Provisions Governing Intergovernmental Cooperation to Address Wildland Fire Mitigation Where a Municipality Owns Land Inside a County for Utility Purposes
    Sponsored by Rep. Cheri Gerou and Sen. Cheri Jahn. The bill requires municipalities that own land for utility purposes inside a county but outside the municipal boundaries to enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement with the county or the Colorado State Forest Service in order to mitigate wildfires.
  • SB 12-066 – Concerning Expanding Those Persons Eligible as Guardians in the Guardianship Assistance Program to Include Persons Ascribed By the Family as Having a Family-Like Relationship With the Child
    Sponsored by Sen. Jeanne Nicholson and Rep. Bob Gardner. The bill allows non-family members to receive guardianship assistance if they are guardians and foster parents of a child and are committed to the child’s permanency.

Additionally, on Monday, April 9, Governor Hickenlooper signed HB 12 -1295 “Colorado Rockies Vehicle License Plate,” sponsored by Rep. Kevin Priola and Sen. Lois Tochtrop. The governor signed the bill into law at Coors Field before the Colorado Rockies home opener. The bill creates a specialty license plate for the Colorado Rockies that benefits the Colorado Rockies Baseball Club Foundation.

For a complete list of legislation signed into law by Governor Hickenlooper on April 6, 2012, click here.

For a complete list of Governor Hickenlooper’s 2012 legislative decisions, click here.

Filed Under: Legislation Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Protected

2013-05-23 06:09:52