Colorado Supreme Court Opinions

May 11, 2020

2020 CO 35 No. 18SC656, Halaseh v. People

Halaseh petitioned for review of the Court of Appeals’ remand order in his underlying appeal, which directed the district court to enter four convictions for class 4 felony theft in place of the single conviction of class 3 felony theft reflected in the charge and jury verdict. The intermediate appellate court reversed the conviction for class 3 felony theft on the grounds that when the statutory authorization for aggregating separate acts of theft was properly applied, there was insufficient evidence to support a single conviction for theft of $20,000 or more. It also found, however, that there was sufficient evidence to support four separate convictions for aggregated thefts with values qualifying as class 4 felonies, and that substituting these four class 4 felony convictions for the vacated class 3 felony conviction was necessary to fulfill what it understood to be its obligation to maximize the effect of the jury’s verdict.

The Supreme Court disapproved the remand order because no theft offense requiring the aggregation of two or more separate instances of theft, whether that aggregation were to be based on commission within a period of six months or on commission as a single course of conduct, was a lesser included offense of the class 3 felony of which Halaseh was actually charged and convicted; no such offense was implicitly found by the jury; and therefore none could be entered in lieu of the reversed conviction without depriving defendant of his right to a jury trial.

Read More..

2020 CO 36 No. 20SA11, People v. Clark

The People filed this interlocutory appeal contesting the trial court’s order suppressing certain statements that defendant made to law enforcement during execution of a search warrant at his home and before his formal arrest. The People contended that the trial court erred in finding that defendant was in custody so as to trigger the requirements of Miranda v. Arizona, 348 U.S. 436, 478–79 (1966), when he made the statements at issue.

The Supreme Court agreed with the People. Accordingly, the Court reversed the trial court’s suppression order and remanded the case to that court for further proceedings.

Read More..

2020 CO 37 No. 18SC646, Russell v. People

Because the Supreme Court determined that its prior decisions interpreting the presentence confinement credit (PSCC) statute are not consistent with the language of the statute and cannot be reconciled with each other, the Court here identified three principles for determining when a defendant is entitled to PSCC and resolved inconsistencies in its previous interpretations of the PSCC statute and the related substantial nexus test.

First, a defendant is entitled to PSCC for each day served where there is a substantial nexus between the conduct or charges for which he or she is confined and the sentence ultimately imposed. A substantial nexus exists where the defendant would have remained confined on the charge or conduct for which credit is sought in the absence of any other charge. Second, causation, not geography, is the defining question in determining if there is a substantial nexus. And third, a defendant is not entitled to duplicative PSCC.

Applying these principles here, the Court concluded that Russell is entitled to additional PSCC against his Douglas County sentence for the period that he was confined after he was resentenced in Jefferson County until he was resentenced in Douglas County. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals’ judgment was reversed and the case was remanded with instructions to return it to the district court for correction of the PSCC award.

Read More..

2020 CO 38 No. 18SC630, Yeadon v. People

The Supreme Court held that the drug offender surcharge, which is a form of punishment, is statutorily mandated and thus the trial court’s failure to order it in open court rendered defendant’s sentence on his class 6 felony drug conviction illegal and subject to correction at any time pursuant to Crim. P. 35(a). Therefore, the trial court’s imposition of that surcharge after the sentencing hearing did not violate defendant’s rights under the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the US and Colorado Constitutions.

The Court of Appeals’ judgment was affirmed and the case was remanded to the trial court. On remand, defendant may request a waiver of the drug offender surcharge assessed and ask for a hearing to show that he is financially unable to pay any portion of the drug offender surcharge.

Read More..

2020 CO 39 No. 18SC905, Waddell v. People

The Supreme Court held that the drug offender surcharge, which is a form of punishment, is statutorily mandated and thus the trial court’s failure to order it in open court rendered  defendant’s sentence on his level 1 drug felony conviction illegal and subject to correction at any time pursuant to Crim. P. 35(a). Therefore, the trial court’s imposition of that surcharge after the sentencing hearing did not violate defendant’s rights under the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the US and Colorado Constitutions.

The Court further held that the trial court’s imposition of five other surcharges after the sentencing hearing did not infringe defendant’s double jeopardy rights. Even assuming, without deciding, that these five surcharges constitute punishment, the Court ruled they are statutorily mandated and thus the trial court’s failure to impose them in open court rendered defendant’s sentences illegal and subject to correction at any time pursuant to Crim. P. 35(a).

Read More..

May 11, 2020

Read More..