Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
17 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2026 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Colorado courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Wenzingergreen2 sentences2006See People v. Wenzinger, supra, ___ P.3d at ___ (" Apprendi or Blakely error does not undermine a court's statutory authority to impose sentence or otherwise deprive the court of jurisdiction."); People v. Gardner, 55 P.3d 231 (Colo.App.2002)(treating Apprendi challenge as a Crim. 2006See People v. Wenzinger, supra, 155 P.3d at 419 (“Apprendi or Blakely error does not undermine a court’s statutory authority to impose sentence or otherwise deprive the court of jurisdiction.”); People v. Gardner, 55 P.3d 231 (Colo.App.2002)(treating Apprendi challenge as a Crim. | 3 | 3 |
People v. Gardnergreen2 sentences2006See, e.g., People v. Gardner, 55 P.3d 231, 232 (Colo.App.2002) ( Apprendi challenge, asserted under previous version of Crim. 2006See, e.g., People v. Gardner, 55 P.3d 231, 232 (Colo.App.2002) (Apprendi challenge, asserted under previous version of Crim. | 2 | 5 |
United States v. Alex Vazquezgreen2 sentences2009See United States v. Vazquez, 271 F.3d 93, 101-02 (3d Cir.2001) ( Apprendi error consists of a trial error-“failing to submit an element of the offense to the jury”-and a sentencing error-“imposing a sentence beyond the prescribed statutory maximum”). 2009See United States v. Vazquez, 271 F.3d 93, 101-02 (3d Cir.2001) ( Apprendi error consists of a trial error— "failing to submit an element of the offense to the jury"—and a sentencing error—"imposing a sentence beyond the prescribed statutory maximum"). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Eliegreen1 sentence2026See Elie, 148 P.3d at 366 ; see also United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 631-34 (2002) (reviewing an unpreserved Apprendi violation for plain error); Crim P. 52(b). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Cottongreen1 sentence2026See Elie, 148 P.3d at 366 ; see also United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 631-34 (2002) (reviewing an unpreserved Apprendi violation for plain error); Crim P. 52(b). | 1 | 1 |
Lopez v. Peoplegreen2 sentences2013T6 In Lopez v. People, 113 P.3d 713, 716, 730 (Colo.2005), the Colorado Supreme Court adopted the Apprendi rule and the exception for prior convictions, and used the term "Blakely-exempt" to refer to the prior conviction exception. 2013T6 In Lopez v. People, 113 P.3d 713, 716, 730 (Colo.2005), the Colorado Supreme Court adopted the Apprendi rule and the exception for prior convictions, and used the term "Blakely-exempt" to refer to the prior conviction exception. | 1 | 1 |
Cunningham v. Californiagreen2 sentences2007Cunningham, 127 S.Ct. at 865 (recognizing Blakely's rejection of the State's argument that the Apprendi rule did not apply because the guilty plea in Blakely provided the court with discretion to impose an exceptional sentence); Blakely, 542 U.S. at 304 , 124 S.Ct. 2581 (defendant pled guilty but still had a right to jury fact-finding during sentencing); Apprendi, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2848 , 147 LEd.2d 485 (same); Lopez, 113 P.3d at 726-27 ("A guilty plea waives the right to a jury trial on the issue of guilt but is not a stipulation to judicial sentencing based on facts not admitted in th 2007Cunningham, 127 S.Ct. at 865 (recognizing Blakely's rejection of the State's argument that the Apprendi rule did not apply because the guilty plea in Blakely provided the court with discretion to impose an exceptional sentence); Blakely, 542 U.S. at 304 , 124 S.Ct. 2581 (defendant pled guilty but still had a right to jury fact-finding during sentencing); Apprendi, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2848 , 147 LEd.2d 485 (same); Lopez, 113 P.3d at 726-27 ("A guilty plea waives the right to a jury trial on the issue of guilt but is not a stipulation to judicial sentencing based on facts not admitted in th | 1 | 1 |
People v. Frenchgreen2 sentences2005See People v. French, 141 P.3d 856 , 2005 WL 2877806 (Colo.App. 2005See People v. French, 141 P.3d 856 , 2005 WL 2877806 (Colo.App. | 1 | 1 |
Schriro v. Summerlingreen2 sentences2004See People v. Bradbury, 68 P.3d 494 (Colo.App.2002); see also Schriro v. Summerlin, — U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 2519 , 159 L.Ed.2d 442 (2004). 2004See People v. Bradbury, 68 P.3d 494 (Colo.App.2002); see also Schriro v. Summerlin, — U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 2519 , 159 L.Ed.2d 442 (2004). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Bradburygreen2 sentences2004See People v. Bradbury, 68 P.3d 494 (Colo.App.2002); see also Schriro v. Summerlin, — U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 2519 , 159 L.Ed.2d 442 (2004). 2004See People v. Bradbury, 68 P.3d 494 (Colo.App.2002); see also Schriro v. Summerlin, — U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 2519 , 159 L.Ed.2d 442 (2004). | 1 | 1 |
Ferrell v. Stategreen1 sentence2004See Coleman v. United States, supra, 329 F.3d at 90 ("it would be anomalous to say, on the one hand, that Apprendi errors are not 'structural-i.e., that they do not inherently deprive defendants of 'basic protections' or 'substantial rights'-and then to say, on the other hand, that Apprendi announced a 'watershed' rule of criminal procedure" (citations omitted); United States v. Mora, 298 F.3d 1218 , 1219 (10th Cir.2002)(because Apprendi error can be exeused as harmless error where the evidence is overwhelming, it cannot be considered a watershed decision that is fundamental to due process); U | 1 | 1 |
People v. Caglegreen1 sentence2002Although defendant raised this claim in his reply brief, he did not raise it in the trial court or in his opening brief, See People v. Czemerynski, 786 P.2d 1100, 1107 (Colo.1990)(issues not raised in an appellant's opening brief will not be considered when raised for the first time in the reply brief); People v. Cagle, 751 P.2d 614, 619 (Colo.1988)(it is axiomatic that an appellate court will not consider constitutional issues not raised in the trial court); People v. Shepherd, 43 P.3d 693 (Colo.App.2001){in Apprendi challenge, court declines to consider constitutional challenges to statutes | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hartkemeyergreen1 sentence2002See People v. Hartkemeyer, 843 P.2d 92, 98 (Colo.App.1992)(a motion under Crim. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Czemerynskigreen1 sentence2002Although defendant raised this claim in his reply brief, he did not raise it in the trial court or in his opening brief, See People v. Czemerynski, 786 P.2d 1100, 1107 (Colo.1990)(issues not raised in an appellant's opening brief will not be considered when raised for the first time in the reply brief); People v. Cagle, 751 P.2d 614, 619 (Colo.1988)(it is axiomatic that an appellate court will not consider constitutional issues not raised in the trial court); People v. Shepherd, 43 P.3d 693 (Colo.App.2001){in Apprendi challenge, court declines to consider constitutional challenges to statutes | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Blakely v. Washington
green
2 sentences2007Cunningham, 127 S.Ct. at 865 (recognizing Blakely's rejection of the State's argument that the Apprendi rule did not apply because the guilty plea in Blakely provided the court with discretion to impose an exceptional sentence); Blakely, 542 U.S. at 304 , 124 S.Ct. 2581 (defendant pled guilty but still had a right to jury fact-finding during sentencing); Apprendi, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2848 , 147 LEd.2d 485 (same); Lopez, 113 P.3d at 726-27 ("A guilty plea waives the right to a jury trial on the issue of guilt but is not a stipulation to judicial sentencing based on facts not admitted in th 2007Cunningham, 127 S.Ct. at 865 (recognizing Blakely's rejection of the State's argument that the Apprendi rule did not apply because the guilty plea in Blakely provided the court with discretion to impose an exceptional sentence); Blakely, 542 U.S. at 304 , 124 S.Ct. 2581 (defendant pled guilty but still had a right to jury fact-finding during sentencing); Apprendi, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2848 , 147 LEd.2d 485 (same); Lopez, 113 P.3d at 726-27 ("A guilty plea waives the right to a jury trial on the issue of guilt but is not a stipulation to judicial sentencing based on facts not admitted in th | 4 | 2005–2007 |
Apprendi v. New Jersey
green
2 sentences2007Cunningham, 127 S.Ct. at 865 (recognizing Blakely's rejection of the State's argument that the Apprendi rule did not apply because the guilty plea in Blakely provided the court with discretion to impose an exceptional sentence); Blakely, 542 U.S. at 304 , 124 S.Ct. 2581 (defendant pled guilty but still had a right to jury fact-finding during sentencing); Apprendi, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2848 , 147 LEd.2d 485 (same); Lopez, 113 P.3d at 726-27 ("A guilty plea waives the right to a jury trial on the issue of guilt but is not a stipulation to judicial sentencing based on facts not admitted in th 2007Cunningham, 127 S.Ct. at 865 (recognizing Blakely's rejection of the State's argument that the Apprendi rule did not apply because the guilty plea in Blakely provided the court with discretion to impose an exceptional sentence); Blakely, 542 U.S. at 304 , 124 S.Ct. 2581 (defendant pled guilty but still had a right to jury fact-finding during sentencing); Apprendi, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2848 , 147 LEd.2d 485 (same); Lopez, 113 P.3d at 726-27 ("A guilty plea waives the right to a jury trial on the issue of guilt but is not a stipulation to judicial sentencing based on facts not admitted in th | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Ring v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2007Ring, 536 U.S. at 609 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 . 2007Ring, 536 U.S. at 609 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Crisp
green
2 sentences2007The People argue that this Court should follow other state courts that have held that a defendant who pleads guilty forfeits his right to jury fact-finding during sentencing, citing Leone v. State, 797 N.E.2d 743 (Ind. 2003); People v. Altom, 338 Ill.App.3d 355 , 272 Ill.Dec. 751 , 788 N.E.2d 55 (2003); Colwell v. State, 118 Nev. 807 , 59 P.3d 463 (2002); State v. Crisp, 362 S.C. 412 , 608 S.E.2d 429 (2005); and State v. Downs, 361 S.C. 141 , 604 S.E.2d 877 (2004). 2007The People argue that this Court should follow other state courts that have held that a defendant who pleads guilty forfeits his right to jury fact-finding during sentencing, citing Leone v. State, 797 N.E.2d 743 (Ind. 2003); People v. Altom, 338 Ill.App.3d 355 , 272 Ill.Dec. 751 , 788 N.E.2d 55 (2003); Colwell v. State, 118 Nev. 807 , 59 P.3d 463 (2002); State v. Crisp, 362 S.C. 412 , 608 S.E.2d 429 (2005); and State v. Downs, 361 S.C. 141 , 604 S.E.2d 877 (2004). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
People v. Altom
green
2 sentences2007The People argue that this Court should follow other state courts that have held that a defendant who pleads guilty forfeits his right to jury fact-finding during sentencing, citing Leone v. State, 797 N.E.2d 743 (Ind. 2003); People v. Altom, 338 Ill.App.3d 355 , 272 Ill.Dec. 751 , 788 N.E.2d 55 (2003); Colwell v. State, 118 Nev. 807 , 59 P.3d 463 (2002); State v. Crisp, 362 S.C. 412 , 608 S.E.2d 429 (2005); and State v. Downs, 361 S.C. 141 , 604 S.E.2d 877 (2004). 2007The People argue that this Court should follow other state courts that have held that a defendant who pleads guilty forfeits his right to jury fact-finding during sentencing, citing Leone v. State, 797 N.E.2d 743 (Ind. 2003); People v. Altom, 338 Ill.App.3d 355 , 272 Ill.Dec. 751 , 788 N.E.2d 55 (2003); Colwell v. State, 118 Nev. 807 , 59 P.3d 463 (2002); State v. Crisp, 362 S.C. 412 , 608 S.E.2d 429 (2005); and State v. Downs, 361 S.C. 141 , 604 S.E.2d 877 (2004). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Downs
green
2 sentences2007The People argue that this Court should follow other state courts that have held that a defendant who pleads guilty forfeits his right to jury fact-finding during sentencing, citing Leone v. State, 797 N.E.2d 743 (Ind. 2003); People v. Altom, 338 Ill.App.3d 355 , 272 Ill.Dec. 751 , 788 N.E.2d 55 (2003); Colwell v. State, 118 Nev. 807 , 59 P.3d 463 (2002); State v. Crisp, 362 S.C. 412 , 608 S.E.2d 429 (2005); and State v. Downs, 361 S.C. 141 , 604 S.E.2d 877 (2004). 2007The People argue that this Court should follow other state courts that have held that a defendant who pleads guilty forfeits his right to jury fact-finding during sentencing, citing Leone v. State, 797 N.E.2d 743 (Ind. 2003); People v. Altom, 338 Ill.App.3d 355 , 272 Ill.Dec. 751 , 788 N.E.2d 55 (2003); Colwell v. State, 118 Nev. 807 , 59 P.3d 463 (2002); State v. Crisp, 362 S.C. 412 , 608 S.E.2d 429 (2005); and State v. Downs, 361 S.C. 141 , 604 S.E.2d 877 (2004). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Colwell v. State
green
2 sentences2007The People argue that this Court should follow other state courts that have held that a defendant who pleads guilty forfeits his right to jury fact-finding during sentencing, citing Leone v. State, 797 N.E.2d 743 (Ind. 2003); People v. Altom, 338 Ill.App.3d 355 , 272 Ill.Dec. 751 , 788 N.E.2d 55 (2003); Colwell v. State, 118 Nev. 807 , 59 P.3d 463 (2002); State v. Crisp, 362 S.C. 412 , 608 S.E.2d 429 (2005); and State v. Downs, 361 S.C. 141 , 604 S.E.2d 877 (2004). 2007The People argue that this Court should follow other state courts that have held that a defendant who pleads guilty forfeits his right to jury fact-finding during sentencing, citing Leone v. State, 797 N.E.2d 743 (Ind. 2003); People v. Altom, 338 Ill.App.3d 355 , 272 Ill.Dec. 751 , 788 N.E.2d 55 (2003); Colwell v. State, 118 Nev. 807 , 59 P.3d 463 (2002); State v. Crisp, 362 S.C. 412 , 608 S.E.2d 429 (2005); and State v. Downs, 361 S.C. 141 , 604 S.E.2d 877 (2004). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Leone v. State
green
2 sentences2007The People argue that this Court should follow other state courts that have held that a defendant who pleads guilty forfeits his right to jury fact-finding during sentencing, citing Leone v. State, 797 N.E.2d 743 (Ind. 2003); People v. Altom, 338 Ill.App.3d 355 , 272 Ill.Dec. 751 , 788 N.E.2d 55 (2003); Colwell v. State, 118 Nev. 807 , 59 P.3d 463 (2002); State v. Crisp, 362 S.C. 412 , 608 S.E.2d 429 (2005); and State v. Downs, 361 S.C. 141 , 604 S.E.2d 877 (2004). 2007The People argue that this Court should follow other state courts that have held that a defendant who pleads guilty forfeits his right to jury fact-finding during sentencing, citing Leone v. State, 797 N.E.2d 743 (Ind. 2003); People v. Altom, 338 Ill.App.3d 355 , 272 Ill.Dec. 751 , 788 N.E.2d 55 (2003); Colwell v. State, 118 Nev. 807 , 59 P.3d 463 (2002); State v. Crisp, 362 S.C. 412 , 608 S.E.2d 429 (2005); and State v. Downs, 361 S.C. 141 , 604 S.E.2d 877 (2004). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Sandstrom v. Montana
green
2 sentences2004See Coleman v. United States, supra, 329 F.3d at 90 ("it would be anomalous to say, on the one hand, that Apprendi errors are not 'structural-i.e., that they do not inherently deprive defendants of 'basic protections' or 'substantial rights'-and then to say, on the other hand, that Apprendi announced a 'watershed' rule of criminal procedure" (citations omitted); United States v. Mora, 298 F.3d 1218 , 1219 (10th Cir.2002)(because Apprendi error can be exeused as harmless error where the evidence is overwhelming, it cannot be considered a watershed decision that is fundamental to due process); U 2004See Coleman v. United States, supra, 329 F.3d at 90 ("it would be anomalous to say, on the one hand, that Apprendi errors are not 'structural-i.e., that they do not inherently deprive defendants of 'basic protections' or 'substantial rights'-and then to say, on the other hand, that Apprendi announced a 'watershed' rule of criminal procedure" (citations omitted); United States v. Mora, 298 F.3d 1218 , 1219 (10th Cir.2002)(because Apprendi error can be exeused as harmless error where the evidence is overwhelming, it cannot be considered a watershed decision that is fundamental to due process); U | 1 | 2004–2004 |
William Cain v. Robert Redman
green
1 sentence2004See Coleman v. United States, supra, 329 F.3d at 90 ("it would be anomalous to say, on the one hand, that Apprendi errors are not 'structural-i.e., that they do not inherently deprive defendants of 'basic protections' or 'substantial rights'-and then to say, on the other hand, that Apprendi announced a 'watershed' rule of criminal procedure" (citations omitted); United States v. Mora, 298 F.3d 1218 , 1219 (10th Cir.2002)(because Apprendi error can be exeused as harmless error where the evidence is overwhelming, it cannot be considered a watershed decision that is fundamental to due process); U | 1 | 2004–2004 |
People v. Shepherd
green
1 sentence2002Although defendant raised this claim in his reply brief, he did not raise it in the trial court or in his opening brief, See People v. Czemerynski, 786 P.2d 1100, 1107 (Colo.1990)(issues not raised in an appellant's opening brief will not be considered when raised for the first time in the reply brief); People v. Cagle, 751 P.2d 614, 619 (Colo.1988)(it is axiomatic that an appellate court will not consider constitutional issues not raised in the trial court); People v. Shepherd, 43 P.3d 693 (Colo.App.2001){in Apprendi challenge, court declines to consider constitutional challenges to statutes | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.