refined analysis (Colorado) · Go Syfert
← Colorado issues

refined analysis in Colorado

9 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 2013–2021 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.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
People v. Gaskinsgreen
colo · 1992 · cited in 4 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2013–2019
2 sentences

2019And if the court finds that such review gives rise to an inference of gross disproportionality, it must then perform an extended proportionality review. ¶28 We have determined that all three triggering offenses (for possession of schedule I and II controlled substances) and two of the three predicate offenses (for possession of a schedule II controlled substance and theft) are not per se grave or serious.5 It follows that the abbreviated proportionality review of each 24-year sentence must entail a refined analysis of the facts and circumstances surrounding these offenses and potentially the p

2018To ensure sentences are not disproportionate, a criminal defendant is "entitled, upon request, to a proportionality review of his sentence under Colorado's habitual criminal statute." Id. at 522 . "[A]n appellate court is as well positioned as a trial court to conduct a proportionality review [in cases where] ... a refined analysis requiring inquiry into specific facts not available on the appellate record [is] unnecessary." People v. Hargrove , 2013 COA 165 , ¶ 15, 338 P.3d 413 (quoting People v. Gaskins , 825 P.2d 30 , 38 (Colo. 1992) ). ¶ 11 When a defendant challenges a sentence as grossly

14
Close v. Peoplered
colo · 2002 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018
1 sentence

2018See Close v. People , 48 P.3d 528 , 532 (Colo. 2002).

11
People v. Mershongreen
colo · 1994 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
1 sentence

2016People v. Mershon, 874 P.2d 1025, 1032 (Colo. 1994).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
People v. Lucero green
colo · 1987
2 sentences

2021Id. ( quoting Clark , supra , at 48 ) . ¶52 Finally, the refined test reflects that it is more difficult today to say that a court will know a marriage when it sees one.

2021Id. (quoting Clark, supra, at 48). ¶52 Finally, the refined test reflects that it is more difficult today to say that a court will know a marriage when it sees one.

32021–2021
Obergefell v. Hodges green
scotus · 2015
2 sentences

2021Whatever deep transformations marriage has undergone, see Obergefell , 576 U.S. at 660 , 135 S.Ct. 2584 , we have consistently recognized it as a civil contract requiring the mutual assent of the parties . ¶54 Parties asserting a common law marriage need not prove that they had detailed knowledge of and intent to obtain all the legal consequences that attach to marriage.

2021Whatever deep transformations marriage has undergone, see Obergefell, 576 U.S. at 660 , we have consistently recognized it as a civil contract requiring the mutual assent of the parties. ¶54 Parties asserting a common law marriage need not prove that they had detailed knowledge of and intent to obtain all the legal consequences that attach to marriage.

22021–2021
In re Estate of Yudkin green
colo · 2021
1 sentence

2021The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado 2 East 14th Avenue • Denver, Colorado 80203 2021 CO 2 Supreme Court Case No. 19SC234 Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals Court of Appeals Case No. 17CA1996 In re the Estate of Viacheslav Yudkin, deceased.

12021–2021
People v. Hargrove green
coloctapp · 2013
2 sentences

2018To ensure sentences are not disproportionate, a criminal defendant is "entitled, upon request, to a proportionality review of his sentence under Colorado's habitual criminal statute." Id. at 522 . "[A]n appellate court is as well positioned as a trial court to conduct a proportionality review [in cases where] ... a refined analysis requiring inquiry into specific facts not available on the appellate record [is] unnecessary." People v. Hargrove , 2013 COA 165 , ¶ 15, 338 P.3d 413 (quoting People v. Gaskins , 825 P.2d 30 , 38 (Colo. 1992) ). ¶ 11 When a defendant challenges a sentence as grossly

2018To ensure sentences are not disproportionate, a criminal defendant is "entitled, upon request, to a proportionality review of his sentence under Colorado's habitual criminal statute." Id. at 522 . "[A]n appellate court is as well positioned as a trial court to conduct a proportionality review [in cases where] ... a refined analysis requiring inquiry into specific facts not available on the appellate record [is] unnecessary." People v. Hargrove , 2013 COA 165 , ¶ 15, 338 P.3d 413 (quoting People v. Gaskins , 825 P.2d 30 , 38 (Colo. 1992) ). ¶ 11 When a defendant challenges a sentence as grossly

12018–2018
People v. Deroulet green
colo · 2002
1 sentence

2018To ensure sentences are not disproportionate, a criminal defendant is "entitled, upon request, to a proportionality review of his sentence under Colorado's habitual criminal statute." Id. at 522 . "[A]n appellate court is as well positioned as a trial court to conduct a proportionality review [in cases where] ... a refined analysis requiring inquiry into specific facts not available on the appellate record [is] unnecessary." People v. Hargrove , 2013 COA 165 , ¶ 15, 338 P.3d 413 (quoting People v. Gaskins , 825 P.2d 30 , 38 (Colo. 1992) ). ¶ 11 When a defendant challenges a sentence as grossly

12018–2018

Statutes the citing opinions construe

CO § Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-801 (4) CO § Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-10-113 (3) CO § Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-15-102 (3) CO § Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-2-104 (3) CO § Colo. Rev. Stat. § 15-22-102 (3) CO § Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-401 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

WA 10 (2001–2019) CO 9 (2013–2021) NJ 7 (1986–2025) MO 6 (1971–2009) CA 6 (1979–2023) IL 5 (1910–2020) MD 5 (1978–2018) DC 5 (1980–2012) NY 4 (1979–1997) OH 4 (1998–2022) TN 3 (1999–2012) DE 3 (1990–2022) TX 3 (1984–2024) WV 2 (1911–1981) FL 2 (1981–2005) PA 2 (1985–2009) KS 2 (2018–2019) OR 2 (1975–2018) UT 2 (1982–2021)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check