August 24, 2019

Bills Regarding Protection Orders and Mandatory Reporters Signed by Governor Hickenlooper

Governor Hickenlooper continues to sign legislation as it crosses his desk. To date, he has signed an impressive 240 pieces of legislation into law. He is expected to sign more bills in the coming days and weeks.

On Tuesday, May 14, 2013, Governor Hickenlooper signed five bills. They are summarized here.

Governor Hickenlooper also signed 12 bills on Wednesday, May 15, and Thursday, May 16, 2013. Five of the bills are summarized here.

It’s not over yet—stay tuned for the latest legislative decisions by Governor Hickenlooper. For a complete list of the bills that have been signed this legislative session, click here.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Defendant’s Daughter Rightly Named as Protected Person Under Mandatory Protection Order Despite Dismissal of Charge

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People v. Sterns on Thursday, May 9, 2013.

Mandatory Protection Order—Victim—Plea Agreement—Sentencing Range.

Defendant appealed from the trial court’s mandatory protection order and sentence. The order and sentence were affirmed.

Defendant was charged with three counts of solicitation to commit second-degree murder for contracting to have his daughter, his ex-wife, and her current husband killed. Before trial, defendant and the prosecution reached a plea agreement in which defendant agreed to plead guilty to an added count of second-degree attempted murder, with his ex-wife and her husband as the only named victims, as well as a crime of violence sentence enhancer, in exchange for dismissal of all other charges. At the plea hearing, the trial court accepted defendant’s plea and entered a mandatory protection order, naming defendant’s ex-wife, her husband, and defendant’s daughter as protected persons.

On appeal, defendant contended that the trial court lacked statutory authority to name his daughter as a protected person in the mandatory protection order. Adding or dropping a single charge within a multi-charge case does not dispose of the case. Thus, when the trial court dismissed the charge involving defendant’s daughter, it did not thereby dispose of the action against defendant. The action continued pursuant to the plea agreement. Accordingly, the trial court’s mandatory protection order properly included defendant’s daughter.

Defendant also contended that the trial court abused its discretion by sentencing him to a twenty-four-year term of imprisonment. Because this sentence falls within the range agreed to under defendant’s plea agreement, defendant is not entitled to appellate review of this issue.

HB 13-1109: Correcting Language of Mandatory Protection Orders Against Criminals to Encompass Parole Period

On January 18, 2013, Rep. Perry Buck and Sen. Scott Renfroe introduced HB 13-1109 – Concerning the Application of Mandatory Protection Orders to ParoleesThis summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.

Under current law, a mandatory protection order is created against any person charged with a criminal offense. The order restrains the person charged from harassing, molesting, intimidating, retaliating against, or tampering with any witness to or victim of the acts charged. The protection order remains in effect until final disposition of the action.

For the purposes of these provisions, the bill amends the definition of “until final disposition of the action” to clarify that a defendant shall not be deemed to have been released from incarceration until the defendant has also been discharged from any period of parole supervision that follows such incarceration. On Feb. 12, the House gave final approval of the bill; the bill is assigned to the Judiciary Committee in the Senate.