May 22, 2013

You are here: Home / Archives for substance abuse

SB 13-250: Amending the Provisions for Sentencing of Persons Convicted of Certain Drug Crimes

April 12, 2013 by Leave a Comment

On Monday, April 1, 2013, Sen. Pat Steadman introduced SB 13-250 – Concerning Changes to Sentencing of Persons Convicted of Drug Crimes. This summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.

The bill creates a sentencing option for offenders convicted of certain drug felonies that allows the court to vacate the felony conviction and enter a misdemeanor conviction in its place if the offender successfully completes a community-based sentence.

For level 4 drug felonies, the bill creates an exhaustion of remedies requirement prior to the court sentencing the defendant to prison.

If an offender who is convicted of a level 4 drug felony is terminated from a community corrections sentence, the court shall hold a resentencing hearing or make written findings regarding the sentence.

The bill creates new felony and misdemeanor drug sentencing grids.

The bill amends the drug sentencing article short title and legislative declaration.

The bill assigns each of the drug crimes a new drug penalty based on the new felony and misdemeanor drug sentencing grids.

The bill prohibits a plea agreement that requires the defendant to waive his or her right to petition to have the conviction record sealed.

When a defendant is sentenced to probation for a drug misdemeanor, the court may impose residential drug treatment as a condition of probation.

The bill amends the intensive supervision probation program to allow defendants convicted of a misdemeanor to participate if they are assessed as higher risk.

The bill adds all drug felonies to the habitual sentencing schemes.

The bill makes conforming amendments.

The bill authorizes the statewide organization representing district attorneys the ability to receive, manage, and expend state funds in the manner prescribed by the general assembly on behalf of the district attorneys who are members of the organization.

Under current law, drug offenders convicted after July 1, 2011, have the opportunity to have their conviction sealed. The bill conforms those provisions to the new drug offense classifications.

The bill requires the division of criminal justice in the department of public safety to collect data on drug cases and issue a report by Dec. 31, 2016.

The bill was introduced on April 1 and it is assigned to the Judiciary Committee.

Filed Under: Legislation Tagged With: , , , ,

SB 13-219: Implementing Rules for Remediation of Property Contaminated by an Illegal Drug Lab

March 28, 2013 by Leave a Comment

On Friday, March 15, 2013, Sen. Lois Tochtrop introduced SB 13-219 – Concerning the Remediation Performed on Property Contaminated by an Illegal Drug Laboratory. This summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.

Currently, the state board of health may promulgate rules for the cleanup of illegal drug labs. The bill requires the board to implement and promulgate rules addressing the following:

  • Testing and evaluating contamination;
  • Training and certifying people to assess and clean up illegal drug laboratories;
  • Approval of consultants’ or contractors’ trainers; and
  • Certifying that property meets the cleanup standards established by the board.

The board is also directed to establish fees and administrative penalties to implement these standards.

Currently, a person who documents cleaning up an illegal drug lab to the board’s standards is immune from a lawsuit but the manufacturer of the illegal drugs is not immune. The bill adds, as a person who is not immune, a person convicted of possession of chemicals, supplies, or equipment with intent to manufacture the illegal drugs.

A person who violates a rule of the board is subject to a penalty of up to $15,000. The bill sets procedures for notifying a person of an alleged violation and issuing an order and establishes standards for taking administrative action and determining the penalty. The bill is assigned to the Health & Human Services Committee.

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

Colorado Court of Appeals: Plea Counsel for Criminal Defendant Should Have Advised of Mandatory Deportation but No Prejudice Shown

March 7, 2013 by Leave a Comment

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People v. Campos-Corona on Thursday, February 28, 2013.

Crim.P. 35(c)—Ineffective Plea Counsel.

Defendant appealed from an order denying his motion for relief pursuant to Crim.P. 35(c). The judgment was affirmed.

Defendant was charged with one count of possession of a schedule II controlled substance with intent to distribute, and one count of conspiracy to distribute a schedule II controlled substance. He pleaded guilty to an added count of distribution of a schedule II controlled substance in exchange for dismissal of the original charges and a more favorable sentencing range. After successfully completing his sentence to probation, he faced deportation proceedings.

Defendant filed a Crim.P. 35(c) motion to seek to withdraw his plea on the ground that plea counsel was ineffective in advising him regarding the immigration consequences of his guilty plea. At the post-conviction hearing, plea counsel testified that he advised defendant that a guilty plea would make renewing his permanent residence status difficult, if not impossible, and he would likely be deported. Plea counsel stated that defendant wanted to plead guilty to try to be sentenced to probation and would deal with the immigration issue later. Plea counsel acknowledged that he had not told defendant that the plea would subject him to a mandatory removal provision from which no discretionary relief could be had.

Defendant testified that plea counsel advised him that he “would [or] could have problems” renewing his permanent resident status. He gave conflicting testimony as to whether he was advised he could be deported as a result of pleading guilty. He testified that if he had been told in absolute terms that he would be deported, he would not have entered a guilty plea. The post-conviction court found plea counsel’s representations were adequate regarding potential deportation.

On appeal, defendant argued it was error to deny his petition for post-conviction relief. The Court of Appeals found that counsel’s performance was deficient, but agreed the petition was properly denied for failure to sufficiently demonstrate prejudice. A criminal defendant is entitled to relief for ineffective assistance of counsel by showing that (1) counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) a reasonable probability exists that but for counsel’s errors, the defendant “would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.”

Here, 8 USC § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) mandates removal for violation of any law relating to controlled substances other than a single offense involving possession of marijuana for personal use of thirty grams or less. Defendant admitted a significant quantity of cocaine was found in his possession and at his home. He was not advised that pleading guilty would subject him to mandatory, permanent removal. Plea counsel’s performance was not reasonable and the trial court’s finding otherwise was in error.

However, the Court agreed that even if inadequate advice was provided, defendant failed to show he was prejudiced. The Court deferred to the trial court’s findings that his testimony established only that he wanted to avoid prison and therefore it would not have been rational for him to proceed to trial. The order was affirmed.

Summary and full case available here.

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

Tenth Circuit: No Fourth Amendment Violation in Search of Defendant’s Home

February 21, 2013 by Leave a Comment

The Tenth Circuit published its opinion in United States v. Garcia on Wednesday, February 13, 2013.

A confidential informant told Agent Latin about a quantity of methamphetamine consistent with trafficking in Robert Garcia’s possession. The informant said the methamphetamine could be found in Garcia’s residence and described the residence as a single-wide mobile home without an address but bearing the number 32 on its west end. Latin included this description and a photograph of the residence in the affidavit and application for the search warrant he presented to a state judge. Unfortunately, he mistakenly identified the residence as 1220 Mescalero Street. The state judge issued a warrant to “search forthwith the person or place described in the Affidavit.” Although it commanded police to conduct the search “forthwith,” the search of Garcia’s residence did not occur until nine days after the warrant issued.

The police executed the search against the single-wide trailer bearing the number 32 as depicted in the photograph in Latin’s affidavit, even though that residence was not 1220 Mescalero Street. In the end, officers found approximately 54 grams of methamphetamine, marijuana, pills, around $30,000 in cash, drug paraphernalia, security cameras, ledgers, and other drug-related items inside the home.

Garcia moved to suppress the evidence. The district court denied the motion. Garcia pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute five grams or more of methamphetamine, which allowed him to appeal from the denial of his motion to suppress.

On appeal, Garcia contended the district court should have suppressed evidence obtained from a search of his residence. He argued the warrant was invalid because (1) it was stale and (2) the address on the warrant did not match his residence.

Staleness: The Tenth Circuit found no Fourth Amendment violation because the affidavit’s statements regarding continuous criminal activity situated this case within the case law making the passage of nine days less critical. The delay in the execution of the search warrant did not undermine the probable cause to search Garcia’s home. Even assuming the officers failed to abide the warrant’s instruction to execute it “forthwith,” the failure added almost nothing to the Court’s assessment of the reasonableness of the search.

Proper Premises: Regardless of the error concerning the address, the issuing judge clearly intended for the officers to search the residence described and depicted in the warrant application. There was never any doubt about which residence police should search. The Tenth Circuit held this practical reality outweighed the technical error in the warrant. The description was sufficient to enable the executing officer to locate and identify the premises with reasonable effort, and there was no reasonable probability that another premise might be mistakenly searched.

In sum, the warrant was executed before it became stale and within the time constraints of the federal rules. And, because the warrant adopted the supporting affidavit’s unambiguous description of the residence, the address mismatch is of no consequence.

AFFIRMED.

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

Tenth Circuit: Increase in Sentence Based on Amount of Cocaine for Which Defendant was Responsible Unsupported in Record

February 14, 2013 by Leave a Comment

The Tenth Circuit published its opinion in United States v. Battle on Tuesday, February 12, 2013.

In 1997, a jury convicted Shawn Battle of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base. Battle was sentenced to 360 months’ imprisonment. Battle appealed his conviction and sentence.  The Tenth Circuit affirmed. Shawn Battle then filed a motion for sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) following Amendments 750 and 759 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which would have the effect of retroactively reducing his advisory sentence Guidelines range. Under the amended Guidelines, a finding that Battle was responsible for 1.5 kilograms of crack would correspond to a reduced sentence range of 262 to 327 months. Battle argued that the court should find him eligible for a reduced sentence based on the finding that Battle was responsible for 1.5 kilograms of crack. The district court denied the motion. Combining figures in the Presentence Report, the court determined that Battle was responsible for 3.4 kilograms of crack. Using this 3.4 kilogram figure, the district court imposed a new increased sentence of 324 months. Battle appealed.

Federal courts generally “may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). However, in the case of a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission, the court may reduce a previously imposed term of imprisonment if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission. Section 3582(c)(2)’s text, together with its narrow scope, shows that Congress intended to authorize only a limited adjustment to an otherwise final sentence and not a plenary resentencing proceeding. District courts cannot recalculate aspects of a sentence that are unaffected by a retroactively applicable amendment to the Guidelines.

In the case at bar, the Tenth Circuit determined that the supplemental drug quantity calculations made by the district court at Battle’s § 3582(c)(2) proceeding that he was responsible for 3.4 kilograms of crack were unsupported by the facts found at his original sentencing.

REVERSED and REMANDED for resentencing.

Filed Under: Case Law Tagged With: , , ,

Tenth Circuit: Convictions and Sentences Affirmed in Case Arising from Defendants’ Operation of Medical Clinic

January 17, 2013 by Leave a Comment

The Tenth Circuit published its opinion in United States v. Schneider on Wednesday, January 16, 2013.

Dr. Stephen Schneider was a doctor of osteopathic medicine and his wife, Ms. Schneider, was a licensed nurse (“the Schneiders”). They owned and operated Schneider Medical Clinic in Haysville, Kansas, where they provided pain management treatment, including the prescription of controlled substances. A Kansas grand jury indicted the Schneiders. At trial, they were convicted of several counts of unlawful drug distribution, health care fraud, and money laundering arising from their operation of the Medical Clinic. The district court sentenced Dr. Schneider to 360 months’ imprisonment, and Ms. Schneider to 396 months’ imprisonment. The Schneiders appeal their convictions, alleging that (1) they were denied the right to conflict-free representation; (2) the district court erroneously admitted expert testimony; (3) the district court improperly instructed the jury; and (4) there was insufficient evidence to support the charge of health care fraud resulting in death.

(1) The Schneiders argue they were denied the right to conflict-free representation.

The Tenth Circuit held Dr. and Ms. Schneider waived all potential conflicts voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently, based on the totality of the circumstances, following two hearings on potential conflicts.

(2) The Schneiders contend the district court erroneously admitted expert testimony.

Dr. Parran, an expert witness for the government, testified “the clinic was at fault” for illegal drug distribution. Dr. Parran also testified that, from his review of the records, the Schneiders ran a “dishonest practice.” Another expert witness for the government, Dr. Jorgensen, opined that the Schneiders’ health care fraud resulted in patients’ deaths, and that he believed the Schneiders filed fraudulent claims. The Schneiders objected to this testimony.

The rules of evidence allow an expert to opine on an “ultimate issue” to be decided by the trier of fact. Fed. R. Evid. 704(a). However, an expert may not simply tell the jury what result it should reach; he or she must explain the basis for any summary opinion. Here, the Tenth Circuit found no error in the admission of Drs. Parran and Jorgensen’s testimony. Neither doctor told the jury to reach a particular verdict, i.e., that Dr. Schneider was guilty. Rather, after explaining at great length their observations from the evidence, they summarized their findings in their testimony.

(3) Defendants allege the district court improperly instructed the jury.

The Tenth Circuit found no abuse of  discretion in the jury instructions objected to at trial, considering de novo the instructions as a whole to determine whether they accurately informed the jury of the governing law. The Tenth Circuit found no plain error in the instructions objected to for the first time on appeal.

(4) The Schneiders argue there was insufficient evidence to support the charge of health care fraud resulting in death.

After viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to ascertain whether any rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the Tenth Circuit held sufficient evidence supported the convictions on these counts.

AFFIRMED.

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

Governor Hickenlooper Finishes Signing Bills Approved This Year by General Assembly

June 15, 2012 by Leave a Comment

Governor Hickenlooper’s desk got a little cleaner last week, as he signed the last of the bills approved by the General Assembly during this legislative session. In total, the governor signed 309 bills this year. He also vetoed one bill, allowed one bill to pass into law without his signature, and allowed Lieutenant Governor Joe Garcia to sign one bill.

And, don’t miss our Legislative Wrap-Up CLE Presentation on July 10 to learn how laws passed this legislative session will affect your practice! Details below.

On Wednesday, June 6, 2012, Governor Hickenlooper signed eight bills into law, including a bill designed to modernize the state’s personnel system. That bill and two others are summarized here.

  • HB 12-1321 – Concerning the State Personnel System, and, in Connection Therewith, Enacting the “Modernization of the State Personnel System Act.”
    Sponsored by Reps. Mark Ferrandino and Glenn Vaad and Sens. Mike Johnston and Keith King. The bill establishes a merit pay system to replace the old pay-for-performance system, makes changes regarding separation of state employees, and makes conditional changes to the appointment of state employees.
  • HB 12-1272 – Concerning Continuation of Enhanced Unemployment Insurance Benefits for Unemployed Individuals Participating in Approved Training Programs, and, in Connection Therewith, Making an Appropriation.
    Sponsored by Reps. Crisanta Duran and Robert Ramirez and Sen. Linda Newell. The bill extends enhanced unemployment insurance benefits for unemployed individuals involved in approved training programs until June 30, 2014.
  • HB 12-1041- Concerning the Creation of an Electronic Death Registration System in the Department of Public Health and Environment and, in Connection Therewith, Making an Appropriation.
    Sponsored by Rep. Jeanne Labuda and Sen. Lucia Guzman. The bill creates an electronic system for reporting of death information to counties and provides an alternative to the current paper-based system that requires families to travel to the decedent’s county of death in order to receive a death certificate.

The governor continued his bill signing efforts on Thursday, June 7, 2012, when he signed two bills, including a criminal proceedings omnibus bill and a bill clarifying CORA. These two bills are summarized below.

  • HB 12-1310 – Concerning Changes to Statutory Provisions Related to Criminal Proceedings, and, in Connection Therewith, Making an Appropriation.
    Sponsored by Rep. Bob Gardner and Sen. Morgan Carroll. The bill incorporates several other bills regarding issues of criminal procedure, and affects several areas of criminal law, including sentencing, court proceedings, sex offenses, probation, and parole. It also criminalizes the use of cathinones (bath salts).
  • HB 12-1036 – Concerning Clarification of the Exemption from the “Colorado Open Records Act” for Investigative Files.
    Sponsored by Rep. Jim Kerr and Sen. Betty Boyd. The bill clarifies that the exemption from CORA applies to investigative files for all civil, criminal, and administrative proceedings in Colorado, and also clarifies the security and chain of custody for ballots throughout the election season.

On Friday, June 8, 2012, Governor Hickenlooper signed the last bills of this legislative session. He signed 14 bills on Friday, including two bills that help military families in Colorado, HB 12-1059 and HB 12-1350. Five of the bills Governor Hickenlooper signed Friday are summarized here.

  • HB 12-1273 – Concerning the Inclusion of Approved Facility Schools Affiliated with a Hospital to the Definition of Child Care Facility for Purposes of the Child Care Contribution Income Tax Credit.
    Sponsored by Rep. Dan Pabon and Sen. Pat Steadman. The bill adds schools that are operated by nonprofit hospital facilities for the benefit of their patients to the list of eligible recipients for the state child care contribution tax credit. Facilities would be eligible to receive donations in 2013 but individuals would not be able to claim the credit until 2014.
  • HB 12S-1002 - Concerning Administration of the Unemployment Insurance Program in Order to Stabilize Unemployment Insurance Rates, and, in Connection Therewith, Facilitating the Issuance of Unemployment Revenue Bonds, Accelerating the Creation of the Division of Unemployment Insurance in the Department of Labor and Employment, and Making Technical Changes to Provisions Enacted as a Part of House Bill 11-1288 to Ensure Appropriate Transition to the New Unemployment Insurance Premium Rate Structure.
    Sponsored by Reps. Larry Liston and Dan Pabon and Sen. Cheri Jahn. The bill enables the newly created Division of Unemployment Insurance (UI) to issue revenue bonds on behalf of the UI program. It requires certification from several officials, including the Executive Director of the CDLE, the State Treasurer, and the Governor, regarding the issuance of the revenue bonds.
  • SB 12-036 – Concerning Parental Consent for the Collection of Information from Students in Schools.
    Sponsored by Sen. Shawn Mitchell and Rep. Chris Holbert. The bill requires parental consent when schools gather certain information from students, including social security numbers or information regarding religious affiliation.
  • SB 12-128 - Concerning Achieving Efficiencies in the Medicaid Long-Term Care Program Through Greater Utilization of Alternative Care Facilities.
    Sponsored by Sen. Ellen Roberts and Rep. Ken Summers. The bill authorizes the Department of Health Care Policy and Financing to enhance reimbursements to alternative care facilities for patients transferred from nursing homes and also allows the DHCPF to create a program to identify Medicaid patients who are at risk of long-term nursing home placement and could otherwise utilize alternative care facilities.
  • HB 12-1110 - Concerning the Regulation of Appraisal Management Companies, and, in Connection Therewith, Making an Appropriation.
    Sponsored by Rep. Angela Williams and Sen. Morgan Carroll. The bill redefines the legal meaning of appraisal management companies (AMCs) and creates a licensure process in the Division of Real Estate, including establishing licensure guidelines.

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

CLE Program: 2012 Legislative Update with Michael Valdez – Tales from Under the Golden Dome

This CLE presentation will take place on Tuesday, July 10. Participants may attend live in our classroom or watch the live webcast.

If you can’t make the live program or webcast, the program will also be available as a homestudy in two formats: video on-demand and mp3 download.
Filed Under: Legislation Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tenth Circuit: New Supervised Release Is Reasonable Given Failure to Deal with Drug Issues, Need for Treatment, and Multiple Violations of Prior Terms of Supervised Release

May 16, 2012 by Leave a Comment

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals published its opinion in United States v. Handley on Tuesday, May 15, 2012.

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s sentence. Petitioner appeals his sentence, following revocation of his supervised release for drug use and “imposition of a new term of incarceration of twelve months and supervised release of four years, on grounds his supervised release exceeds the amount allowed by law.” The Court determined that “because the maximum allowable term of supervised release is life . . . , the district court could impose a four-year term of supervised release following [Petitioner]’s incarceration. Moreover, the district court’s imposition of four years of supervised release in this case is both ‘reasoned and reasonable’ given [Petitioner]’s failure to deal with his drug issues, obvious need for mental health and substance abuse treatment, and multiple violations of the conditions of his prior terms of supervised release.”

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

HB 12-1325: Changing Sales Limits for Meth Precursor Drugs; Requiring Stores to Submit Purchasers’ Information to National Online Log

April 16, 2012 by Leave a Comment

On March 9, 2012, Rep. Ken Summers and Sen. Jeanne Nicholson introduced HB 12-1325 – Concerning Tracking Transactions Related to Methamphetamine Precursor Drugs. This summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.

The bill changes the 24-hour period to a period of one calendar day during which any person may not knowingly deliver in or from a store to the same individual, and a person may not purchase from a store, more than 3.6 grams of a methamphetamine precursor drug, or a combination of two or more methamphetamine precursor drugs. The bill adds more than 9 grams of methamphetamine precursor drugs during a 30-day period to those prohibitions. A store is required to check a customer’s identification before selling the methamphetamine precursor drug and keep a log of each sale.

Beginning January 1, 2013, a store before completing a precursor sale must electronically submit the required information to the national precursor log exchange if the system is available without a charge to stores for access. If the sale would result in the store or purchaser violating the quantity limits, the system will generate a stop sale alert. The person shall not complete the sale if the system generates a stop sale alert; except that the person may make the sale if he or she has a reasonable fear of imminent bodily harm if the sale is not completed. If the electronic system is unavailable, the store must keep a log until the system becomes available. There is an exception for stores that make fewer than 10 transactions during a seven day period.

The Colorado Bureau of Investigation will receive weekly reports from the national precursor log exchange and can allow Colorado law enforcement agencies to access the exchange. The provisions preempt any local ordinances. On March 27, the Judiciary Committee amended the bill are referred it to the Appropriations Committee. The Appropriations Committee is scheduled to hear the bill on Thursday, April 12 at 1:30 pm.

Summaries of other featured bills can be found here.

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

Colorado Supreme Court: Wiretap Statute Requires Proof of Authorization of Wiretap by Certain Publicly Accountable Elected Officials

March 6, 2012 by Leave a Comment

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in O’Hara, III v. People on March 5, 2012.

Wiretapping—CRS § 16-15-102(1)(a).

The Supreme Court held that CRS § 16-15-102(1)(a) requires the attorney general or an elected district attorney to personally authorize an application to initiate or extend a wiretap, but does not require the elected official to personally prepare or submit the application. The Court concluded that a remand for further findings and conclusions by the trial court is appropriate in this case, given that neither the parties nor the trial court had the benefit of the Court’s interpretation of the authorization requirements of CRS § 16-15-102(1)(a). The Court therefore affirmed the court of appeals’ decision to remand this case, albeit on different grounds, and remanded to the court of appeals with directions to remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Summary and full case available here.

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

SB 12-104: Consolidation of Funding for Adult and Juvenile Substance Abuse Treatment

March 5, 2012 by Leave a Comment

On January 31, 2012, Sen. Pat Steadman and Rep. Brian DelGrosso introduced SB 12-104 – Concerning Consolidation of Drug Treatment Funding Into the Correctional Treatment Fund. This summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.

Currently, there are three major state funding sources for substance abuse treatment. The bill consolidates the three sources into the correctional treatment cash fund. The bill creates the correctional treatment board that will prepare an annual treatment plan that the Judicial Department shall include in its annual presentation to the Joint Budget Committee. The board shall review information regarding drug treatment programs in the state provided by the department of human services and suggestions from judicial district drug treatment boards before preparing the annual treatment plan.

Currently, the drug treatment board for each judicial district recommends allocations of moneys for local drug treatment needs from one of the existing treatment funds. Each judicial district drug treatment board will be expanded to include a community corrections board chair, a local parole officer, a person with expertise in juvenile matters, and a county sheriff. The judicial district drug treatment boards will make suggestions to the board regarding assessed local drug treatment needs. On February 16, the Finance committee approved the bill and sent it to the Appropriations Committee for action; the bill is not listed on the printed calendar.

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

SB 12-116: Moving Cathinones Off Drug Schedules And Classifying As Controlled Substance

March 4, 2012 by Leave a Comment

On January 31, 2012, Sen. Joyce Foster and Rep. J. Paul Brown introduced SB 12-116 – Concerning Penalties Associated with Cathinones, and, in Connection Therewith, Establishing a Misdemeanor Penalty for Possession of a Cathinone. This summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.

The bill defines cathinones and establishes criminal penalties for possession of cathinones and for distributing, manufacturing, dispensing, or selling cathinones. Any person or entity that sells a product that is labeled as a “bath salt” or any other trademark and contains any amount of a cathinone commits a deceptive trade practice and is subject to a civil penalty. On February 21, the Local Government Committee amended the bill and referred it to the Appropriations Committee; the bill is not listed on the Appropriations Committee calendar.

Summaries of other featured bills can be found here.

Filed Under: Legislation Tagged With: , , , , ,
«Older Posts
Protected

2013-05-22 09:58:13