August 18, 2019

Archives for March 29, 2012

HB 12-1271: Raising Age for Direct Filing and Limiting Circumstances in Which Juveniles Can Be Charged as Adults

On February 7, 2012, Rep. B.J. Nikkel and Sen. Angela Giron introduced HB 12-1271 – Concerning Charging of Juveniles by Direct File of Information or Indictment in District Court. This summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.

On Friday, March 23 the CBA Legislative Policy Committee authorized the Juvenile Law Section to support the bill in the name of the Juvenile Law Section. Under current law, a juvenile charged with a specific serious crime can be prosecuted in district court under the district attorney’s authority to direct file certain juveniles. This bill amends the direct file statute to limit the offenses for which a juvenile may be subject to direct file to class 1 felonies, class 2 felonies, crime of violence felonies or sex offenses if the juvenile has a previous felony adjudication, and violent sex offenses. The bill limits direct file to juveniles age 16 or 17.

After a juvenile is charged in district court, the juvenile may petition the adult court for a reverse-transfer hearing to transfer the case to juvenile court. The juvenile must make the request at or before the time to request a preliminary hearing, and the court shall set the reverse-transfer hearing at the same time as the preliminary hearing. If after a reverse-transfer hearing, the court finds the juvenile and community would be better served by juvenile proceedings it shall order the case to juvenile court. If, after a preliminary hearing, the district court does not find probable cause for a direct-file-eligible offense, the court shall remand the case to the juvenile court.

Under the bill, a juvenile’s non-felony conviction must be remanded to juvenile court and, when a juvenile sentence is selected, the conviction converts to a juvenile adjudication.

The amended bill passed out of the House on bill on March 19; the bill is scheduled on the Judiciary Committee calendar for Monday, March 26 at 1:30 p.m.

Since this summary, the bill passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee unamended and was referred to the Senate Committee of the Whole.

Summaries of other featured bills can be found here.

HB 12-1270: Increasing the Amount of Money that a Liquor Licensee Can Spend on Alcohol at Retail

On February 7, 2012, Rep. Su Ryden and Sen. Rollie Heath introduced HB 12-1270 – Concerning an Increase in the Limit on the Amount of Alcohol Beverages for On-Premises Consumption May Purchase from a Licensed Alcohol Beverage Retailer. This summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.

Current law limits the amount of alcohol beverages persons licensed to sell alcohol beverages for consumption on a licensed premises may purchase at retail, rather than from a licensed alcohol beverage wholesaler. For hotel and restaurant licensees, the limit is $1,000 worth of alcohol beverages per year; for all other on-premises licensees, the limit is $500 worth of alcohol beverages per year.

The bill increases the limit to $2,000 worth of alcohol beverages per year for beer and wine, hotel and restaurant, and tavern licensees may purchase at retail, rather than from a licensed alcohol beverage wholesaler for consumption on a licensed premises. For all other persons licensed to sell alcohol beverages for on-premises consumption, including retail gaming tavern, brew pub, and club licensees, the bill phases in the increase in the limit as follows:

  • For the 2013 calendar year, the limit is increased to $1,000;
  • For the 2014 calendar year, the limit is increased to $1,500; and
  • For the 2015 calendar year and calendar years thereafter, the limit is increased to $2,000.

The bill has cleared both houses and now heads to the Governor’s desk for signature.

Since this summary, the House considered the Senate’s amendments on March 27, and the result of that consideration was laid over daily.

Summaries of other featured bills can be found here.

HB 12-1266: Continuation of Regulation of Bail Bond Providers; Division of Insurance to Regulate

On February 7, 2012, Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg and Sen. John Morse introduced HB 12-1266 – Concerning the Continuation of the Licensing of Persons who Furnish Bail for Compensation. This summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.

Sunset Review Process

The bill continues the regulation of bail bonding agents until September 1, 2017. The daily bond register requirement is replaced with a requirement that the information be kept in a case file and clarifies that the requirement applies to cash bonding agents and professional cash bail agents. A prohibition against licensing firms is repealed. Bail-related transactions are required to be made on forms approved by the division of insurance. On February 28 the Judiciary Committee amended the bill and referred it to the Appropriations Committee for consideration of the fiscal impact. The bill is not listed on the Appropriations Committee calendar.

Summaries of other featured bills can be found here.

HB 12-1263: Preventing State Agencies from Advertising that People with Criminal Records are Precluded from Employment

On February 7, 2012, Rep. Claire Levy and Sen. Pat Steadman introduced HB 12-1263 – Concerning Reducing Barriers to Employment by State of Colorado Agencies by People with Criminal Records. This summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.

If an agency requires an applicant’s criminal history in the hiring process, the agency may not:

  • Unless a statute prohibits a person convicted of a specific crime from serving in that position, indicate that a person with a criminal record may not apply; and
  • Inquire or determine the applicant’s criminal history until the agency makes a conditional offer of employment.

If the applicant has a criminal conviction, the agency must consider the following factors when deciding whether the conviction disqualifies the applicant from the position:

  • The nature of the conviction;
  • The relationship between the conviction and the specific position for hire and the bearing, if any, the conviction will have on his or her fitness or ability to perform the duties and responsibilities including, but not limited to, whether the conviction was for unlawful sexual behavior and whether the employment would place the applicant in contact with vulnerable persons;
  • Any information produced by the applicant or produced on his or her behalf regarding his or her rehabilitation and good conduct; and
  • The time that has elapsed since the applicant’s conviction.

The bill specifies that a regulatory authority cannot consider an individual’s criminal history when granting a state license unless certain conditions are met:

  • The offense is specifically related to the profession being licensed and was committed within ten years of the application for licensure;
  • The offense is a sex offense and licensure would permit the person to be employed in a position that has contact with vulnerable persons; or
  • There is a specific statutory requirement to the contrary.

The amended bill passed out of the House on March 20 and has been assigned to the Judiciary Committee.

Summaries of other featured bills can be found here.

Tenth Circuit: Plea Agreement Waived Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claim Because Failure to File Appeal Does Not Undermine Validity of Plea

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals published its opinion in United States v. Viera on Wednesday, March 28, 2012.

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. Petitioner, a federal prisoner, filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court dismissed the first three claims because Mr. Viera could not show prejudice. The district court denied relief on all claims but the fourth—that his attorney failed to file an appeal as instructed—because Petitioner waived this collateral challenge. “The court was sufficiently uncertain, however, about the waiver determination that it granted COA on the appeal issue.”

The Court determined that the plea agreement waived Petitioner’s ineffective assistance claim “because counsel’s alleged failure to file an appeal does not undermine the validity of the plea or the waiver.” Petitioner voluntarily “entered into a valid plea agreement that waived his right to bring a collateral attack except in limited circumstances not found here, and because enforcement of the waiver does not produce a miscarriage of justice,” the Court affirmed the district court’s denial of this claim.

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 3/28/12

On Wednesday, March 28, 2012, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued one published opinion and six unpublished opinions.


Schubler v. Holder, Jr.

Bush v. Wilson

Uzochukwu v. Roody

Loose v. Kogousek

Baker v. Turley

United States v. Martinez

No case summaries are provided for unpublished opinions. However, published opinions are summarized and provided by Legal Connection.