June 27, 2019

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

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.