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 1 courts 1992–2026 4 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. Myersgreen2 sentences2026See id. at ¶ 74; see also People v. Myers, 45 P.3d 756, 757 (Colo. App. 2001) (“The fact that a sentencing court finds aggravating factors to be more compelling than mitigating factors does not constitute an abuse of discretion or indicate that the trial court failed to consider evidence of mitigation.”). ¶ 38 Because Palermo’s sentence falls within the statutory range, was based on appropriate considerations, and is supported by the 17 circumstances of the case, we won’t substitute our judgment for that of the district court. 2026For one thing, 9 while the court may not place undue emphasis on any one sentencing factor to the exclusion of the others, People v. Campbell, 58 P.3d 1080, 1087 (Colo. App. 2002), aff’d, 73 P.3d 11 (Colo. 2003), “[t]he fact that a sentencing court finds aggravating factors to be more compelling than mitigating factors does not constitute an abuse of discretion or indicate that the court failed to consider” all proper sentencing factors, People v. Myers, 45 P.3d 756, 757 (Colo. App. 2001). | 2 | 2 |
Rocha v. Peoplegreen2 sentences1994See Rocha v. People, 713 P.2d 350 (Colo.1986). 1992See Rocha v. People, 713 P.2d 350 (Colo.1986). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Hernandez-Luisgreen2 sentences2026People v. Linares-Guzman, 195 P.3d 1130, 1137 (Colo. App. 2008); see also People v. Hernandez-Luis, 879 P.2d 429, 430 (Colo. App. 1994) (“[T]he fact that a sentencing court finds aggravating factors to be more compelling than mitigating factors does not constitute an abuse of discretion or indicate that the trial court failed to consider evidence of mitigation.”). 2004People v. Hernandes-Luis, 879 P.2d 429 (Colo.App.1994). | 1 | 6 |
People v. Campbellgreen1 sentence2026For one thing, 9 while the court may not place undue emphasis on any one sentencing factor to the exclusion of the others, People v. Campbell, 58 P.3d 1080, 1087 (Colo. App. 2002), aff’d, 73 P.3d 11 (Colo. 2003), “[t]he fact that a sentencing court finds aggravating factors to be more compelling than mitigating factors does not constitute an abuse of discretion or indicate that the court failed to consider” all proper sentencing factors, People v. Myers, 45 P.3d 756, 757 (Colo. App. 2001). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Fullergreen1 sentence2026See Fuller, 791 P.2d at 708 . | 1 | 1 |
People v. Linares-Guzmangreen1 sentence2026People v. Linares-Guzman, 195 P.3d 1130, 1137 (Colo. App. 2008); see also People v. Hernandez-Luis, 879 P.2d 429, 430 (Colo. App. 1994) (“[T]he fact that a sentencing court finds aggravating factors to be more compelling than mitigating factors does not constitute an abuse of discretion or indicate that the trial court failed to consider evidence of mitigation.”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Campbell v. People
green
1 sentence2026For one thing, 9 while the court may not place undue emphasis on any one sentencing factor to the exclusion of the others, People v. Campbell, 58 P.3d 1080, 1087 (Colo. App. 2002), aff’d, 73 P.3d 11 (Colo. 2003), “[t]he fact that a sentencing court finds aggravating factors to be more compelling than mitigating factors does not constitute an abuse of discretion or indicate that the court failed to consider” all proper sentencing factors, People v. Myers, 45 P.3d 756, 757 (Colo. App. 2001). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Eurioste
green
1 sentence2025“The fact that a sentencing court finds aggravating factors to be more compelling than any arguably mitigating factors does not constitute an abuse of discretion or indicate that the trial court failed to consider evidence of mitigation.” Eurioste, 12 P.3d at 851 . ¶8 Here, weighing against Fernandez’s expression of remorse and his desire to seek treatment were several aggravating circumstances. ¶9 For one thing, as the court noted, Fernandez had an “extensive” and “horrific” criminal history that went back more than thirty years. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Walters
green
1 sentence2000People v. Walters, 632 P.2d 566 (Colo.1981). *851 The fact that a sentencing court finds aggravating factors to be more compelling than any arguably mitigating factors does not constitute an abuse of discretion or indicate that the trial court failed to consider evidence of mitigation. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
People v. Horne
green
1 sentence1994Rehabilitation is only one of many factors that must be weighed in sentencing, People v. Home, 657 P.2d 946 (Colo.1983), and the fact that a sentencing court finds aggravating factors to be more compelling than mitigating factors does not constitute an abuse of discretion or indicate that the trial court failed to consider evidence of mitigation. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.