April 20, 2019

Archives for June 28, 2012

Colorado Court of Appeals: Week of June 24, 2012 (No Published Opinions)

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued no published opinions and thirty-three unpublished opinions for the week of June 24, 2012.

Neither State Judicial nor the Colorado Bar Association provides case summaries for unpublished appellate opinions. Case announcements are available here.

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 6/27/12

On Wednesday, June 27, 2012, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued no published opinions and five unpublished opinions.

United States v. Jameson

United States v. Wright

United States v. Gonzalez

Vigil v. Walters

United States v. Roberts

No case summaries are provided for unpublished opinions.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

Death Penalty Post-Trial Procedures Amended by Colorado Supreme Court

On June 27, 2012, the Colorado Supreme Court announced a change to Criminal Procedure Rule 32.2 – Death Penalty Post-Trial Procedures. Crim.P. 32.2(c)(1) is amended to read as follows:

Unitary Notice of Appeal. The notice of appeal for the direct appeal and the notice of appeal for all post-conviction review shall be filed by unitary notice in the supreme court within 7 days after the trial court’s order on post-conviction review motions, or within 7 days after the expiration of the deadline for filing post-conviction review motions if none have been filed. The unitary notice of appeal need conform only to the requirements of sections (1), (2), (6) and (8) of C.A.R. 3(g).

These amendments were adopted on June 21 and are effective July 1.

Click here to review the red line changes to Crim.P. 32.2, outlined as Rule Change 2012(09).

“Rule of Seven” Comment Added to Four Colorado Procedure Rules

On June 27, 2012, the Colorado Supreme Court announced four amendments to various Colorado procedure rules regarding the “rule of seven” for procedural time calculations. Colorado Civil Procedure Rules 6 and 306, Criminal Procedure Rule 45, and Colorado Appellate Rule 26 were all amended with the following Comment:

AFTER THE PARTICULAR EFFECTIVE DATE, TIME COMPUTATION IN MOST SITUATIONS IS INTENDED TO INCORPORATE THE RULE OF SEVEN. UNDER THE RULE OF SEVEN, A DAY IS A DAY, AND BECA– USE CALENDARS ARE DIVIDED INTO 7-DAY WEEK INTERVALS, GROUPINGS OF DAYS ARE IN 7-DAY OR MULTIPLES OF 7-DAY INTERVALS. GROUPINGS OF LESS THAN 7 DAYS HAVE BEEN LEFT AS THEY WERE BECA– USE SUCH SMALL NUMBERS DO NOT INTERFERE WITH THE UNDERLYING CONCEPT. DETAILS OF THE RULE OF SEVEN REFORM ARE SET FORTH IN AN ARTICLE BY RICHARD P. HOLME, 41 COLO. LAWYER, VOL. 1, P 33 (JANUARY 2012).

TIME COMPUTATION IS SOMETIMES “FORWARD,” MEANING STARTING THE COUNT AT A PARTICULAR STATED EVENT [SUCH AS DATE OF FILING] AND COUNTING FORWARD TO THE DEADLINE DATE. COUNTING “BACKWARD” MEANS COUNTING BACKWARD FROM THE EVENT TO REACH THE DEADLINE DATE [SUCH AS A STATED NUMBER OF DAYS BEING ALLOWED BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF TRIAL]. IN DETERMINING THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE RULE OF SEVEN TIME COMPUTATION/TIME INTERVAL AMENDMENTS HAVING A STATUTORY BASIS, SAID AMENDMENTS TAKE EFFECT ON JULY 1, 2012 AND REGARDLESS OF WHETHER TIME INTERVALS ARE COUNTED FORWARD OR BACKWARD, BOTH THE TIME COMPUTATION START DATE AND DEADLINE DATE MUST BE AFTER JUNE 30, 2012. FURTHER, THE TIME COMPUTATION/TIME INTERVAL AMENDMENTS DO NOT APPLY TO MODIFY THE SETTINGS OF ANY DATES OR TIME INTERVALS SET BY AN ORDER OF A COURT ENTERED BEFORE JULY 1, 2012.

These amendments were adopted on June 21, 2012, and are effective July 1.

Click here to review the red line changes to these rules, outlined as Rule Change 2012(08).

Affordable Care Act Upheld by the United States Supreme Court

According to SCOTUSBlog, the United States Supreme Court has upheld the entirety of President Obama’s health care reform law known as the Affordable Care Act. Chief Justice Roberts joined the Court’s four left-leaning justices and penned the opinion, validating the individual mandate as a tax rather than under the Commerce Clause. For a more detailed evaluation, visit SCOTUSBlog for continuing analysis throughout the day.

In Plain English: The Affordable Care Act, including its individual mandate that virtually all Americans buy health insurance, is constitutional. There were not five votes to uphold it on the ground that Congress could use its power to regulate commerce between the states to require everyone to buy health insurance. However, five Justices agreed that the penalty that someone must pay if he refuses to buy insurance is a kind of tax that Congress can impose using its taxing power. That is all that matters. Because the mandate survives, the Court did not need to decide what other parts of the statute were constitutional, except for a provision that required states to comply with new eligibility requirements for Medicaid or risk losing their funding. On that question, the Court held that the provision is constitutional as long as states would only lose new funds if they didn’t comply with the new requirements, rather than all of their funding.