99 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1973–2026 16 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. DiGuglielmogreen2 sentences2026When a defendant receives advice from counsel that differs from that in the written plea documents or the district court’s advisement at the providency hearing, the defendant has “an affirmative obligation to request clarification from the court.” People v. DiGuglielmo, 33 P.3d 1248, 1251 (Colo. App. 2001); see also People v. Phipps, 2016 COA 190M , ¶ 52. 2025Compare People v. DiGuglielmo, 33 P.3d 1248, 1250 (Colo. App. 2001) (trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea where “the record indicated that [the] defendant had simply changed his mind about the disposition to which he had agreed”), 9 with Chippewa, 751 P.2d at 610-11 (the defendant established a fair and just reason to withdraw his guilty plea where his parole status, revealed in the probation report, was unknown at the time of the providency hearing and he thus had “every reason to believe that he could receive a sentence that he wa | 7 | 8 |
United States v. Brocegreen2 sentences2010However, the double jeopardy inquiry is limited to a consideration of "the structure of the information and guilty plea at the time of the providency hearing," and the court "cannot inquire into the facts underlying the guilty plea or take into account statements made at the sentencing hearing.'' Patton, 35 P.3d at 183 (citing Broce, 488 U.S. at 574-75 , 109 S.Ct. 757 ); see also Broce, 488 U.S. at 575 , 109 S.Ct. 757 ("a plea of guilty to a charge does not waive a claim that-judged on its face-the charge is one which the State may not constitutionally prosecute" (quoting Menna, 423 U.S. at 63 2010However, the double jeopardy inquiry is limited to a consideration of "the structure of the information and guilty plea at the time of the providency hearing," and the court "cannot inquire into the facts underlying the guilty plea or take into account statements made at the sentencing hearing.'' Patton, 35 P.3d at 183 (citing Broce, 488 U.S. at 574-75 , 109 S.Ct. 757 ); see also Broce, 488 U.S. at 575 , 109 S.Ct. 757 ("a plea of guilty to a charge does not waive a claim that-judged on its face-the charge is one which the State may not constitutionally prosecute" (quoting Menna, 423 U.S. at 63 | 4 | 4 |
People v. Leonardgreen2 sentences2011The boilerplate selected by the majority notwithstanding, we have long held that although a providency hearing is designed to evidence the constitutional validity of guilty pleas, see People v. Leonard, 673 P.2d 37, 39-40 (Colo.1983), and therefore compliance with Crim. 2011The boilerplate selected by the majority notwithstanding, we have long held that although a providency hearing is designed to evidence the constitutional validity of guilty pleas, see People v. Leonard, 673 P.2d 37, 39-40 (Colo.1983), and therefore compliance with Crim. | 3 | 4 |
People v. Birdsonggreen2 sentences2001Hence, although mandatory parole is clearly not an inevitable consequence of a sentence to probation or to community corrections, People v. Birdsong, 958 P.2d 1124, 1128 (Colo.1998); Benavidez, 986 P.2d at 950 , the scope of the providency hearing must address mandatory parole just as it must address the possible sentence to DOC. 2001Hence, although mandatory parole is clearly not an inevitable consequence of a sentence to probation or to community corrections, People v. Birdsong, 958 P.2d 1124, 1128 (Colo.1998); Benavidez, 986 P.2d at 950 , the scope of the providency hearing must address mandatory parole just as it must address the possible sentence to DOC. | 3 | 4 |
Menna v. New Yorkgreen2 sentences2010However, the double jeopardy inquiry is limited to a consideration of "the structure of the information and guilty plea at the time of the providency hearing," and the court "cannot inquire into the facts underlying the guilty plea or take into account statements made at the sentencing hearing.'' Patton, 35 P.3d at 183 (citing Broce, 488 U.S. at 574-75 , 109 S.Ct. 757 ); see also Broce, 488 U.S. at 575 , 109 S.Ct. 757 ("a plea of guilty to a charge does not waive a claim that-judged on its face-the charge is one which the State may not constitutionally prosecute" (quoting Menna, 423 U.S. at 63 2010However, the double jeopardy inquiry is limited to a consideration of "the structure of the information and guilty plea at the time of the providency hearing," and the court "cannot inquire into the facts underlying the guilty plea or take into account statements made at the sentencing hearing.'' Patton, 35 P.3d at 183 (citing Broce, 488 U.S. at 574-75 , 109 S.Ct. 757 ); see also Broce, 488 U.S. at 575 , 109 S.Ct. 757 ("a plea of guilty to a charge does not waive a claim that-judged on its face-the charge is one which the State may not constitutionally prosecute" (quoting Menna, 423 U.S. at 63 | 3 | 3 |
People v. Caninogreen2 sentences1988A "formalistic recitation by the trial judge at a providency hearing is not a constitutional requisite." People v. Canino, 181 Colo. 207, 211 , 508 P.2d 1273, 1275 (1973). 1988A "formalistic recitation by the trial judge at a providency hearing is not a constitutional requisite." People v. Canino, 181 Colo. 207, 211 , 508 P.2d 1273, 1275 (1973). | 2 | 6 |
Craig v. Peoplegreen2 sentences2025See Craig, 986 P.2d at 962 (“[A]n agreement for a sentence to the [DOC] clearly indicates that the defendant has bargained for a term of confinement commensurate with the period specified.”). 2002Cf Craig v. People, 986 P.2d 951 (Colo.l999)(noting that defendant confirmed at the providency hearing that he understood the written plea documents and did not express confusion or request clarification from the court regarding the claimed differences between the written and oral plea advisements). | 2 | 3 |
SANCHEZ-MARTINEZ v. Peoplegreen2 sentences2025P. 11(b) outlines various determinations the court must make before accepting a guilty plea.” Id. at 1254 . ¶ 34 Initially, we are unable to review the transcript of the providency hearing because it was not included in the appellate record. 2024Blackledge v. Allison , 431 U.S. 63 , 74 - 75 (1977) ; see Sanchez-Martinez v. People , 250 P.3d 1248 , 125 5 , 1257- 59 (Colo. 2011) (the defendant’s plea was unconstitutional despite his signature on “an advisal of rights form” and a Rule 11 colloquy at the providency hearing). | 2 | 3 |
Lopez v. Peoplegreen2 sentences2016See Lopez , 113 P.3d at 716 (“[P]rosecutors arranging plea agreements, or trial courts considering guilty pleas, can insist that defendants admit to those facts potentially needed for aggravated sentencing.”). ¶26 At the providency hearing, the district court accepted defendant’s guilty plea to felony menacing, which carried a presumptive sentencing range of one to three years. 2016See Lopez , 113 P.3d at 716 (“[P]rosecutors arranging plea agreements, or trial courts considering guilty pleas, can insist that defendants admit to those facts potentially needed for aggravated sentencing.”). ¶26 At the providency hearing, the district court accepted defendant’s guilty plea to felony menacing, which carried a presumptive sentencing range of one to three years. | 2 | 3 |
People v. Canodygreen2 sentences2026See People v. Canody, 166 P.3d 218, 220 (Colo. App. 2007). 2022While a defendant’s colloquy with the court a t the providency hearing is not necessarily dispositive of the validity of his or her guilty plea, see, e.g. , People v. Morones-Quinonez , 2015 COA 161, ¶ 17, the appellate court can consider the defendant ’s statements at the providency hearing in determining whether an evidentiary hearing is warranted, see People v. Canody , 166 P.3d 218, 220 (Colo. App. 2007). 15 ¶ 25 Based on the lack of factual allegations in the motions and Ray’s statements at the providency hearing, we conclude that the court properly denied the claim of coercion without a | 2 | 2 |
People v. Durangreen2 sentences2025See People v. Duran, 2015 COA 141, ¶ 12 (“It is the appellant’s responsibility to designate the record on appeal . . . . 2025See People v. Duran, 2015 COA 141, ¶ 12 (“It is the appellant’s responsibility to designate the record on appeal, including those parts of the trial proceedings that are necessary for purposes of the appeal . . . .”). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Cabralgreen2 sentences2025See People v. Cabral, 698 P.2d 234, 236 (Colo. 1985) (“[T]he mere reading of a charge may be sufficient to satisfy the requirement of Crim. 1988The record also demonstrates that defense counsel discussed with his client the possibility of mandatory sentencing, although it is not clear from the record whether defense counsel knew of Chippewa's status as a parolee. [3] See People v. Cabral, 698 P.2d 234, 237 (Colo.1985) (two factors in deciding validity of a guilty plea are that defendant had competent counsel, and that counsel had discussed the charges and effect of the guilty plea with the defendant). | 2 | 2 |
Von Pickrell v. Peoplegreen2 sentences2024See, e.g. , Sanchez-Martinez , 250 P.3d at 1257-59 ; see also Von Pickrell v. People , 163 Colo. 591, 598 , 431 P.2d 1003, 1006-07 (1967) (“ However regular the proceedings . . . might appear from the transcript, it still might be the case that petitioner did not ma ke an intelligent and understanding waiver of his constitutional right s.” (quoting Sanders v. United States , 373 U.S. 1, 19-20 (1963))). ¶ 17 Our review of case law shows that a providency hearing could refute an incompetency claim if it included one or more of t he following (1) defense counsel’s assessment that the defendant is 2024See, e.g. , Sanchez-Martinez , 250 P.3d at 1257-59 ; see also Von Pickrell v. People , 163 Colo. 591, 598 , 431 P.2d 1003, 1006-07 (1967) (“ However regular the proceedings . . . might appear from the transcript, it still might be the case that petitioner did not ma ke an intelligent and understanding waiver of his constitutional right s.” (quoting Sanders v. United States , 373 U.S. 1, 19-20 (1963))). ¶ 17 Our review of case law shows that a providency hearing could refute an incompetency claim if it included one or more of t he following (1) defense counsel’s assessment that the defendant is | 2 | 2 |
Sanders v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2024See, e.g. , Sanchez-Martinez , 250 P.3d at 1257-59 ; see also Von Pickrell v. People , 163 Colo. 591, 598 , 431 P.2d 1003, 1006-07 (1967) (“ However regular the proceedings . . . might appear from the transcript, it still might be the case that petitioner did not ma ke an intelligent and understanding waiver of his constitutional right s.” (quoting Sanders v. United States , 373 U.S. 1, 19-20 (1963))). ¶ 17 Our review of case law shows that a providency hearing could refute an incompetency claim if it included one or more of t he following (1) defense counsel’s assessment that the defendant is 2024See, e.g. , Sanchez-Martinez , 250 P.3d at 1257-59 ; see also Von Pickrell v. People , 163 Colo. 591, 598 , 431 P.2d 1003, 1006-07 (1967) (“ However regular the proceedings . . . might appear from the transcript, it still might be the case that petitioner did not ma ke an intelligent and understanding waiver of his constitutional right s.” (quoting Sanders v. United States , 373 U.S. 1, 19-20 (1963))). ¶ 17 Our review of case law shows that a providency hearing could refute an incompetency claim if it included one or more of t he following (1) defense counsel’s assessment that the defendant is | 2 | 2 |
Blehm v. Peoplegreen2 sentences2024See, e.g. , Sanchez-Martinez , 250 P.3d at 1257-59 ; see also Von Pickrell v. People , 163 Colo. 591, 598 , 431 P.2d 1003, 1006-07 (1967) (“ However regular the proceedings . . . might appear from the transcript, it still might be the case that petitioner did not ma ke an intelligent and understanding waiver of his constitutional right s.” (quoting Sanders v. United States , 373 U.S. 1, 19-20 (1963))). ¶ 17 Our review of case law shows that a providency hearing could refute an incompetency claim if it included one or more of t he following (1) defense counsel’s assessment that the defendant is 2024See Blehm v. People , 817 P.2d 988, 994 (Colo. 1991) . 5 ¶ 9 A defendant is incompetent to enter a guilty plea if, as a result of a mental or developmental disability, the defendant does not have (1) “sufficient present ability to consult with [his] lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding in order to assist in t he defense,” or (2) “a rational and factual understanding of the criminal proceedings.” § 16 -8.5-101(12), C.R.S. 2023; see Godinez , 509 U.S. at 396. “‘Mental disability’ means a substantial diso rder of thought, mood, perception, or cognitive ability that results in | 2 | 2 |
People v. Venzorgreen2 sentences2024See, e.g. , Sanchez-Martinez , 250 P.3d at 1257-59 ; see also Von Pickrell v. People , 163 Colo. 591, 598 , 431 P.2d 1003, 1006-07 (1967) (“ However regular the proceedings . . . might appear from the transcript, it still might be the case that petitioner did not ma ke an intelligent and understanding waiver of his constitutional right s.” (quoting Sanders v. United States , 373 U.S. 1, 19-20 (1963))). ¶ 17 Our review of case law shows that a providency hearing could refute an incompetency claim if it included one or more of t he following (1) defense counsel’s assessment that the defendant is 2024See, e.g. , Sanchez-Martinez , 250 P.3d at 1257-59 ; see also Von Pickrell v. People , 163 Colo. 591, 598 , 431 P.2d 1003, 1006-07 (1967) (“ However regular the proceedings . . . might appear from the transcript, it still might be the case that petitioner did not ma ke an intelligent and understanding waiver of his constitutional right s.” (quoting Sanders v. United States , 373 U.S. 1, 19-20 (1963))). ¶ 17 Our review of case law shows that a providency hearing could refute an incompetency claim if it included one or more of t he following (1) defense counsel’s assessment that the defendant is | 2 | 2 |
| People v. District Court, Arapahoe Countygreen | 2 | 2 |
| People v. Shepardgreen | 2 | 2 |
| People v. Harringtongreen | 2 | 2 |
Watkins v. Peoplegreen2 sentences1983Watkins v. People, 655 P.2d 834 (Colo.1982) (“Once a prima facie showing is made, the conviction is not admissible unless the prosecution establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the conviction was obtained in accordance with the defendant’s constitutional rights.” 655 P.2d at 837 ); People v. Meyers, supra (“In the face of a silent record [of a providency hearing], it was incumbent upon the prosecution to demonstrate by considerably greater evidence than present here that the defendant’s plea was knowingly made.” 617 P.2d at 815); People v. Keenan, 185 Colo. 317 , 524 P.2d 604 (197 1983Watkins v. People, 655 P.2d 834 (Colo.1982) (“Once a prima facie showing is made, the conviction is not admissible unless the prosecution establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the conviction was obtained in accordance with the defendant’s constitutional rights.” 655 P.2d at 837 ); People v. Meyers, supra (“In the face of a silent record [of a providency hearing], it was incumbent upon the prosecution to demonstrate by considerably greater evidence than present here that the defendant’s plea was knowingly made.” 617 P.2d at 815); People v. Keenan, 185 Colo. 317 , 524 P.2d 604 (197 | 1 | 4 |
Blackledge v. Allisongreen2 sentences2024Blackledge v. Allison , 431 U.S. 63 , 74 - 75 (1977) ; see Sanchez-Martinez v. People , 250 P.3d 1248 , 125 5 , 1257- 59 (Colo. 2011) (the defendant’s plea was unconstitutional despite his signature on “an advisal of rights form” and a Rule 11 colloquy at the providency hearing). 2024Blackledge v. Allison , 431 U.S. 63 , 74 - 75 (1977) ; see Sanchez-Martinez v. People , 250 P.3d 1248 , 125 5 , 1257- 59 (Colo. 2011) (the defendant’s plea was unconstitutional despite his signature on “an advisal of rights form” and a Rule 11 colloquy at the providency hearing). | 1 | 3 |
People v. Wadegreen2 sentences1988Based on the transcript of the providency hearing, I believe the defendant had sufficient knowledge of the possible penalties to which he was subject. "[A] record of a providency hearing demonstrating compliance with Crim.P. 11 should be deemed supportive of the conclusion that the defendant did enter his or her guilty plea voluntarily and understandingly." Wade, 708 P.2d at 1370 . 1988Based on the transcript of the providency hearing, I believe the defendant had sufficient knowledge of the possible penalties to which he was subject. “[A] record of a providency hearing demonstrating compliance with Crim.P. 11 should be deemed supportive of the conclusion that the defendant did enter his or her guilty plea voluntarily and understanding^.” Wade, 708 P.2d at 1370 . | 1 | 3 |
People v. Weedgreen2 sentences2026And when evaluating the validity of a plea, we consider “not only the statements made during a providency hearing but also those statements made by both 6 defendant and his attorney in a petition to plead guilty.” People v. Weed, 830 P.2d 1095, 1098 (Colo. App. 1991). 2. 1999People v. Weed, 830 P.2d 1095 (Colo.App.1991). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Chippewagreen2 sentences2025Compare People v. DiGuglielmo, 33 P.3d 1248, 1250 (Colo. App. 2001) (trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea where “the record indicated that [the] defendant had simply changed his mind about the disposition to which he had agreed”), 9 with Chippewa, 751 P.2d at 610-11 (the defendant established a fair and just reason to withdraw his guilty plea where his parole status, revealed in the probation report, was unknown at the time of the providency hearing and he thus had “every reason to believe that he could receive a sentence that he wa 1998Relying on People v. Chippewa, 713 P.2d 1311 (Colo.App.1985), aff'd on other grounds, 751 P.2d 607 (Colo.1988), defendant contends that the court’s misstatement of the minimum sentence during the providency hearing bars it from resentencing him. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Morones-Quinonezgreen2 sentences2025While such a representation does not necessarily 14 foreclose a challenge to the validity of a guilty plea, see People v. Morones-Quinonez, 2015 COA 161 , ¶ 17, such statements “carry a strong presumption of verity,” Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74 (1977). 2022While a defendant’s colloquy with the court a t the providency hearing is not necessarily dispositive of the validity of his or her guilty plea, see, e.g. , People v. Morones-Quinonez , 2015 COA 161, ¶ 17, the appellate court can consider the defendant ’s statements at the providency hearing in determining whether an evidentiary hearing is warranted, see People v. Canody , 166 P.3d 218, 220 (Colo. App. 2007). 15 ¶ 25 Based on the lack of factual allegations in the motions and Ray’s statements at the providency hearing, we conclude that the court properly denied the claim of coercion without a | 1 | 2 |
Benavidez v. Peoplegreen2 sentences2001Hence, although mandatory parole is clearly not an inevitable consequence of a sentence to probation or to community corrections, People v. Birdsong, 958 P.2d 1124, 1128 (Colo.1998); Benavidez, 986 P.2d at 950 , the scope of the providency hearing must address mandatory parole just as it must address the possible sentence to DOC. 2001Hence, although mandatory parole is clearly not an inevitable consequence of a sentence to probation or to community corrections, People v. Birdsong, 958 P.2d 1124, 1128 (Colo.1998); Benavidez, 986 P.2d at 950 , the scope of the providency hearing must address mandatory parole just as it must address the possible sentence to DOC. | 1 | 2 |
| People v. Pozogreen | 1 | 2 |
| People v. Huttongreen | 1 | 2 |
| People v. Leshgreen | 1 | 2 |
| Crumb v. Peoplegreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Aguilargreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Bolinggreen | 1 | 1 |
| v. Barbregreen | 1 | 1 |
| Meredith v. Zavarasgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Rodriguez v. Peoplegreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Rodriguezgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Simpsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Andersongreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Randolphgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Laursongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Patton v. People
green
2 sentences2010However, the double jeopardy inquiry is limited to a consideration of “the structure of the information and guilty plea at the time of the providency hearing,” and the court “cannot inquire into the facts underlying the guilty plea or take into account statements made at the sentencing hearing.” Patton, 35 P.3d at 133 (citing Broce , 488 U.S. at 574–75, 109 S.Ct. 757 ); see also Broce, 488 U.S. at 575 , 109 S.Ct. 757 (“a plea of guilty to a charge does not waive a claim that— judged on its face —the charge is one which the State may not constitutionally prosecute” (quoting Menna, 423 U.S. at 6 2010However, the double jeopardy inquiry is limited to a consideration of "the structure of the information and guilty plea at the time of the providency hearing," and the court "cannot inquire into the facts underlying the guilty plea or take into account statements made at the sentencing hearing.'' Patton, 35 P.3d at 183 (citing Broce, 488 U.S. at 574-75 , 109 S.Ct. 757 ); see also Broce, 488 U.S. at 575 , 109 S.Ct. 757 ("a plea of guilty to a charge does not waive a claim that-judged on its face-the charge is one which the State may not constitutionally prosecute" (quoting Menna, 423 U.S. at 63 | 4 | 2009–2010 |
Henderson v. Morgan
green
2 sentences1990Henderson, 426 U.S. at 647 , 96 S.Ct. at 2257 ; State v. Browning, 245 Kan. 26, 33-34 , 774 P.2d 935, 940 (1989); Noble, 240 Kan. at 165-66 , 727 P.2d at 476-77 . 1990Henderson, 426 U.S. at 647 , 96 S.Ct. at 2257 ; State v. Browning, 245 Kan. 26, 33-34 , 774 P.2d 935, 940 (1989); Noble, 240 Kan. at 165-66 , 727 P.2d at 476-77 . | 3 | 1986–1990 |
People v. Randolph
green
2 sentences1973People v. Alvarez, 181 Colo. 213 , 508 P.2d 1267 (1973); People v. Canino, 181 Colo. 207 , 508 P.2d 1273 (1973); People v. Randolph, 175 Colo. 454 , 488 P.2d 203 (1971); Westendorf v. People, 171 Colo. 123 , 464 P.2d 866 (1970). *420 For the reasons hereinafter stated, we have concluded that the defendant was denied the effective assistance of counsel and that the providency hearing did not provide a factual basis to support the burglary plea which the defendant entered. 1973People v. Alvarez, 181 Colo. 213 , 508 P.2d 1267 (1973); People v. Canino, 181 Colo. 207 , 508 P.2d 1273 (1973); People v. Randolph, 175 Colo. 454 , 488 P.2d 203 (1971); Westendorf v. People, 171 Colo. 123 , 464 P.2d 866 (1970). *420 For the reasons hereinafter stated, we have concluded that the defendant was denied the effective assistance of counsel and that the providency hearing did not provide a factual basis to support the burglary plea which the defendant entered. | 3 | 1973–1974 |
People v. Pendleton
green
2 sentences2024See, e.g. , Sanchez-Martinez , 250 P.3d at 1257-59 ; see also Von Pickrell v. People , 163 Colo. 591, 598 , 431 P.2d 1003, 1006-07 (1967) (“ However regular the proceedings . . . might appear from the transcript, it still might be the case that petitioner did not ma ke an intelligent and understanding waiver of his constitutional right s.” (quoting Sanders v. United States , 373 U.S. 1, 19-20 (1963))). ¶ 17 Our review of case law shows that a providency hearing could refute an incompetency claim if it included one or more of t he following (1) defense counsel’s assessment that the defendant is 2024See, e.g. , Sanchez-Martinez , 250 P.3d at 1257-59 ; see also Von Pickrell v. People , 163 Colo. 591, 598 , 431 P.2d 1003, 1006-07 (1967) (“ However regular the proceedings . . . might appear from the transcript, it still might be the case that petitioner did not ma ke an intelligent and understanding waiver of his constitutional right s.” (quoting Sanders v. United States , 373 U.S. 1, 19-20 (1963))). ¶ 17 Our review of case law shows that a providency hearing could refute an incompetency claim if it included one or more of t he following (1) defense counsel’s assessment that the defendant is | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Padilla v. Kentucky
green
2 sentences2020The defendant has never asserted that he was affirmatively misinformed that he need not worry about his immigration status, as was the defendant in Padilla, 559 U.S. at 359 , or that he was not advised that taking the plea in question would make him deportable, just as would a plea to a felony. 2011Cf. Padilla v. Kentucky, ___ U.S. ___, ___ - ___, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 1482-83 , 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010); People v. Pozo, 746 P.2d 523, 528-29 (Colo.1987). | 2 | 2011–2020 |
People v. Hill
green
2 sentences2016And an award of restitution may be based solely on a victim’s impact statement, which is hearsay. § 18-1.3-603(2) ("The court shall base its order for restitution upon information presented to the court by the prosecuting attorney, who shall compile such information through victim impact statements or other means to determine the amount of restitution . . . ."); Hill , 296 P.3d at 126 . ¶29 At the providency hearing, defendant’s counsel acknowledged that defendant had attempted to elude the state trooper but had been run off the road. 2016And an award of restitution may be based solely on a victim’s impact statement, which is hearsay. § 18-1.3-603(2) ("The court shall base its order for restitution upon information presented to the court by the prosecuting attorney, who shall compile such information through victim impact statements or other means to determine the amount of restitution . . . ."); Hill , 296 P.3d at 126 . ¶29 At the providency hearing, defendant’s counsel acknowledged that defendant had attempted to elude the state trooper but had been run off the road. | 2 | 2016–2016 |
Juhl v. People
green
2 sentences2013In some cases where there is factual support for a guilty plea, the question of whether the evidence supporting the pleas is identical can be determined either by examining evidentiary sources in the record, see, eg., Juhl, 172 P.3d at 898 n.1 (relying on facts as developed at preliminary hearing and motions hearing), or by looking to. the prosecutor's factual representations at the providency hearing. 2009In a case where there is factual support for a defendant's guilty pleas, the question of whether the evidence supporting the pleas is identical can be determined either by examining evidentiary sources in the record, see, e.g., Juhl, 172 P.3d at 898 n. 1 (relying on facts as developed at preliminary hearing and motions hearing), or by looking to the prosecutor's factual representations at the providency hearing. | 2 | 2009–2013 |
| Young v. People green | 2 | 2001–2007 |
| People v. Keenan green | 2 | 1983–1985 |
| People v. Alvarez green | 2 | 1973–1983 |
| People v. Golden neutral | 2 | 1974–1974 |
| People v. Mason green | 2 | 1973–1974 |
| People v. Riney green | 2 | 1973–1974 |
| Dunlap v. People green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| People v. Osorio green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| Edwards v. People green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Elliott J. Forgette v. The People of the State of Colorado. green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| People v. Antonio-Antimo green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| People v. Alengi green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Candelaria v. People green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Bogdanov v. People green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Bogdanov v. People green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Chavez v. People green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| People v. Childress green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Cockrell, Darrell Lynn green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| People v. Bobrik neutral | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| People v. McAfee green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| People v. Blehm green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| People v. Flagg green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| People v. Arguello green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| People in Interest of JFC green | 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.