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.
11 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2025 2 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. Curtisgreen2 sentences2025See Curtis, 681 P.2d at 515 (“The purposes of advisement by the court on the record are to ensure that waiver of a fundamental constitutional right is intelligent and knowing, to preclude postconviction disputes between [the] defendant and counsel over the issue . . . .”); see also People v. 7 Gray, 920 P.2d 787, 793 (Colo. 1996) (A valid Curtis advisement facilitates appellate review by creating a record of a waiver of the right to testify; “[w]ithout a Curtis requirement, waiver issues would merge into ineffective assistance of counsel claims.”); cf. People v. Naranjo, 840 P.2d 319, 323-25 ( 2014Id. 136 By mandating reversal for failing to include this specific set of advisements, the Curtis progeny unquestionably went beyond anything required by the United States Supreme Court, or even this court, with regard to the waiver of a defendant's right to counsel. | 3 | 4 |
People v. Blehmgreen2 sentences2010This was because "Curtis' limitation of review to direct appeal [had] excluded fact-finding hearings in precisely those cases where facts outside the record may be crucial to understanding whether the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to testify (Le., in those cases where the trial court advisement is deficient in some way)." Id. at 791-92 . 2010Compare People v. O'Hara, 240 P.3d 283 (Colo.App.2010) (People v. Blehm, 983 P.2d 779, 797 (Colo.1999), holds that an invalid waiver "may be addressed only in post-conviction proceedings"), with People v. Gomez, 211 P.3d 53, 55 (Colo.App.2008) (taking up waiver issue "based on judicial economy"). | 2 | 4 |
People v. Naranjogreen1 sentence2025See Curtis, 681 P.2d at 515 (“The purposes of advisement by the court on the record are to ensure that waiver of a fundamental constitutional right is intelligent and knowing, to preclude postconviction disputes between [the] defendant and counsel over the issue . . . .”); see also People v. 7 Gray, 920 P.2d 787, 793 (Colo. 1996) (A valid Curtis advisement facilitates appellate review by creating a record of a waiver of the right to testify; “[w]ithout a Curtis requirement, waiver issues would merge into ineffective assistance of counsel claims.”); cf. People v. Naranjo, 840 P.2d 319, 323-25 ( | 1 | 1 |
People v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2021A substantive defect requires “dismissal of the charge” or renders “void any conviction entered on such charge.” Id. ¶ 11 Although the People contend that Curtis’s claim “raise[s] an alleged defect in the charging information,” they don’t point to any specific form defect in the information. 2021See Williams, 984 P.2d at 63-64 . ¶ 14 Even if we assume Curtis’s objection could be classified as a form objection, we see nothing in the record — and the People point to nothing — suggesting Curtis’s failure to raise the challenge under Crim. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Gomezgreen1 sentence2010Compare People v. O'Hara, 240 P.3d 283 (Colo.App.2010) (People v. Blehm, 983 P.2d 779, 797 (Colo.1999), holds that an invalid waiver "may be addressed only in post-conviction proceedings"), with People v. Gomez, 211 P.3d 53, 55 (Colo.App.2008) (taking up waiver issue "based on judicial economy"). | 1 | 1 |
People v. O'HARAgreen1 sentence2010Compare People v. O'Hara, 240 P.3d 283 (Colo.App.2010) (People v. Blehm, 983 P.2d 779, 797 (Colo.1999), holds that an invalid waiver "may be addressed only in post-conviction proceedings"), with People v. Gomez, 211 P.3d 53, 55 (Colo.App.2008) (taking up waiver issue "based on judicial economy"). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Gibsongreen1 sentence2010See People v. Gibson, 203 P.3d 571, 574 (Colo.App.2008) (holding that direct appeal is improper means to assert claim that additional instructions in Curtis advisement misled defendant and prompted his decision not to testify). . | 1 | 1 |
People v. Versteeggreen2 sentences2010However, his reliance on People v. Versteeq, 165 P.3d 760, 767 (Colo.App.2006), quoting Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 468 , 117 S.Ct. 1544 , 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997), for the proposition that, "where the law at the time of trial was settled and clearly contrary to the law at the time of appeal[,] it is enough that an error be 'plain' at the time of appellate consideration," is misplaced. 2010However, his reliance on People v. Versteeq, 165 P.3d 760, 767 (Colo.App.2006), quoting Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 468 , 117 S.Ct. 1544 , 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997), for the proposition that, "where the law at the time of trial was settled and clearly contrary to the law at the time of appeal[,] it is enough that an error be 'plain' at the time of appellate consideration," is misplaced. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
v. Zadra No. 15SC262, People v. Adams
green
1 sentence2021P. 12(b)(2) “where the defect is apparent from the face of the charges”) (citations omitted), aff’d on other grounds, 2017 CO 18, ¶ 18 . ¶ 13 To the extent Curtis’s claim can be characterized as an objection to the information at all, it appears to be a substantive one. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Johnson v. Zerbst
green
2 sentences2014In the year following Curtis, we made this crystal clear by finding the record waiver required by Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938), and Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1974), satisfied by no more than notification of the right itself, along with a caution that there could be disadvantages to proceeding pro se. 2014In the year following Curtis, we made this crystal clear by finding the record waiver required by Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938), and Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1974), satisfied by no more than notification of the right itself, along with a caution that there could be disadvantages to proceeding pro se. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Gross
green
1 sentence2014IIL Preservation (60 In Gross, 39 P.3d at 1281-82 , the division held that a defendant need not renew an objection to the prosecution's motion to consolidate indictments in separate cases to preserve the issue for appellate review. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Faretta v. California
green
2 sentences2014In the year following Curtis, we made this crystal clear by finding the record waiver required by Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938), and Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1974), satisfied by no more than notification of the right itself, along with a caution that there could be disadvantages to proceeding pro se. 2014In the year following Curtis, we made this crystal clear by finding the record waiver required by Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938), and Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1974), satisfied by no more than notification of the right itself, along with a caution that there could be disadvantages to proceeding pro se. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Ziglar
green
2 sentences2014In People v. Ziglar, 45 P.3d 1266 , 1268 n. 4 (Colo.2002), we questioned the propriety of addressing a Curtis challenge on direct appeal in light of Blehm. 2014In People v. Ziglar, 45 P.3d 1266 , 1268 n. 4 (Colo.2002), we questioned the propriety of addressing a Curtis challenge on direct appeal in light of Blehm. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Johnson v. United States
green
2 sentences2010However, his reliance on People v. Versteeq, 165 P.3d 760, 767 (Colo.App.2006), quoting Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 468 , 117 S.Ct. 1544 , 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997), for the proposition that, "where the law at the time of trial was settled and clearly contrary to the law at the time of appeal[,] it is enough that an error be 'plain' at the time of appellate consideration," is misplaced. 2010However, his reliance on People v. Versteeq, 165 P.3d 760, 767 (Colo.App.2006), quoting Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 468 , 117 S.Ct. 1544 , 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997), for the proposition that, "where the law at the time of trial was settled and clearly contrary to the law at the time of appeal[,] it is enough that an error be 'plain' at the time of appellate consideration," is misplaced. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
People v. Turley
green
2 sentences1993While the supreme court has not addressed the issue presented here, a division of this court in People v. Turley, 870 P.2d 498 (Colo.App.1993) held that an advisement similar to that in question was neither inaccurate nor misleading under the Curtis standard. 1993While the supreme court has not addressed the issue presented here, a division of this court in People v. Turley, 870 P.2d 498 (Colo.App.1993) held that an advisement similar to that in question was neither inaccurate nor misleading under the Curtis standard. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Chapman v. California
red
2 sentences1992The majority opinion is therefore arguably inconsistent on whether it means to establish the general, pre- Curtis test for violations of a right to testify predicated on a deficient waiver, or whether it means to establish the pre- Curtis test for violations of a right to testify predicated specifically on inadequate advice from defense counsel, or whether it means only to adopt a case-by-case analysis of pre- Curtis trials whereby, in this particular case, it establishes the test for whether Sammy Naranjo's right to testify was violated by inadequate advice from defense counsel. [6] Curtis in 1992The majority opinion is therefore arguably inconsistent on whether it means to establish the general, pre- Curtis test for violations of a right to testify predicated on a deficient waiver, or whether it means to establish the pre- Curtis test for violations of a right to testify predicated specifically on inadequate advice from defense counsel, or whether it means only to adopt a case-by-case analysis of pre- Curtis trials whereby, in this particular case, it establishes the test for whether Sammy Naranjo's right to testify was violated by inadequate advice from defense counsel. [6] Curtis in | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.