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.
6 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2025 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. Woellhafgreen1 sentence2025Therefore, “[w]here appellate review of the sentences at issue is clearly allowed, a defendant cannot claim any expectation of finality in his or her original sentencing.” People v. Woellhaf, 199 P.3d 27, 30 (Colo. App. 2007). 2. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Manngreen1 sentence2012See People v. Mann, 646 P.2d 352 , 358 (Colo.1982) ("The decision not to serve [a key witness], when there was ample opportunity, was a trial tactic, subject to the risk of backfiring, and thus the defendant is not entitled to complain that she was deprived of the right to present testimony."); People v. Peterson, 656 P.2d 1301 , 1304 (Colo.1983) ("When defense counsel's strategy backfires, the resultant error cannot be urged as grounds for reversal on appeal."); People v. Rowerdink, 756 P.2d 986 , 993 (Colo.1988) ("[W]e held that, when defense counsel's strategy backfires, the resultant error | 1 | 1 |
People v. Rowerdinkgreen1 sentence2012See People v. Mann, 646 P.2d 352 , 358 (Colo.1982) ("The decision not to serve [a key witness], when there was ample opportunity, was a trial tactic, subject to the risk of backfiring, and thus the defendant is not entitled to complain that she was deprived of the right to present testimony."); People v. Peterson, 656 P.2d 1301 , 1304 (Colo.1983) ("When defense counsel's strategy backfires, the resultant error cannot be urged as grounds for reversal on appeal."); People v. Rowerdink, 756 P.2d 986 , 993 (Colo.1988) ("[W]e held that, when defense counsel's strategy backfires, the resultant error | 1 | 1 |
People v. Lybargergreen1 sentence2012See People v. Mann, 646 P.2d 352 , 358 (Colo.1982) ("The decision not to serve [a key witness], when there was ample opportunity, was a trial tactic, subject to the risk of backfiring, and thus the defendant is not entitled to complain that she was deprived of the right to present testimony."); People v. Peterson, 656 P.2d 1301 , 1304 (Colo.1983) ("When defense counsel's strategy backfires, the resultant error cannot be urged as grounds for reversal on appeal."); People v. Rowerdink, 756 P.2d 986 , 993 (Colo.1988) ("[W]e held that, when defense counsel's strategy backfires, the resultant error | 1 | 1 |
People v. Petersongreen1 sentence2012See People v. Mann, 646 P.2d 352 , 358 (Colo.1982) ("The decision not to serve [a key witness], when there was ample opportunity, was a trial tactic, subject to the risk of backfiring, and thus the defendant is not entitled to complain that she was deprived of the right to present testimony."); People v. Peterson, 656 P.2d 1301 , 1304 (Colo.1983) ("When defense counsel's strategy backfires, the resultant error cannot be urged as grounds for reversal on appeal."); People v. Rowerdink, 756 P.2d 986 , 993 (Colo.1988) ("[W]e held that, when defense counsel's strategy backfires, the resultant error | 1 | 1 |
People v. Aguirregreen1 sentence2011See People v. Aguirre, 839 P.2d 483, 487 (Colo.App.1992). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Kibelgreen2 sentences2008Cf. People v. Kibel, 701 P.2d 37, 43 (Colo.1985) (collecting cases for the proposition that a defendant cannot challenge a sentencing scheme unless it is actually applied to him or her). 2008Cf. People v. Kibel, 701 P.2d 37, 43 (Colo. 1985) (collecting cases for the proposition that a defendant cannot challenge a sentencing scheme unless it is actually applied to him or her). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Denver Publishing Co. v. Board of County Commissioners
green
1 sentence2012See People v. Mann, 646 P.2d 352 , 358 (Colo.1982) ("The decision not to serve [a key witness], when there was ample opportunity, was a trial tactic, subject to the risk of backfiring, and thus the defendant is not entitled to complain that she was deprived of the right to present testimony."); People v. Peterson, 656 P.2d 1301 , 1304 (Colo.1983) ("When defense counsel's strategy backfires, the resultant error cannot be urged as grounds for reversal on appeal."); People v. Rowerdink, 756 P.2d 986 , 993 (Colo.1988) ("[W]e held that, when defense counsel's strategy backfires, the resultant error | 1 | 2012–2012 |
People v. Rogers
green
2 sentences2012On issues of trial strategy, defense counsel is captain of the ship.") (internal citations omitted); People v. Rogers, 2012 COA 192 , ¶ 15, 317 P.3d 1280 (Colo.App.2012) (citing Cropper v. People, 251 P.3d 434 , 435 (Colo.2011) ) (acknowledging that counsel may waive a client's Sixth Amendment confrontation right). ¶ 60 Therefore, while counsel may, in fact, decide for strategic reasons not to question jurors on racial bias, a defendant cannot claim his rights were violated when an opportunity existed to protect those rights but his counsel failed to do so for tactical reasons. 2012On issues of trial strategy, defense counsel is captain of the ship.") (internal citations omitted); People v. Rogers, 2012 COA 192 , ¶ 15, 317 P.3d 1280 (Colo.App.2012) (citing Cropper v. People, 251 P.3d 434 , 435 (Colo.2011) ) (acknowledging that counsel may waive a client's Sixth Amendment confrontation right). ¶ 60 Therefore, while counsel may, in fact, decide for strategic reasons not to question jurors on racial bias, a defendant cannot claim his rights were violated when an opportunity existed to protect those rights but his counsel failed to do so for tactical reasons. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Cropper v. People
green
1 sentence2012On issues of trial strategy, defense counsel is captain of the ship.") (internal citations omitted); People v. Rogers, 2012 COA 192 , ¶ 15, 317 P.3d 1280 (Colo.App.2012) (citing Cropper v. People, 251 P.3d 434 , 435 (Colo.2011) ) (acknowledging that counsel may waive a client's Sixth Amendment confrontation right). ¶ 60 Therefore, while counsel may, in fact, decide for strategic reasons not to question jurors on racial bias, a defendant cannot claim his rights were violated when an opportunity existed to protect those rights but his counsel failed to do so for tactical reasons. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Pennsylvania v. Goldhammer
green
2 sentences2007Pennsylvania v. Goldhammer, 474 U.S. 28, 30 , 106 S.Ct. 358 , 354, 88 L.Ed.2d 183 (1985). 2007Pennsylvania v. Goldhammer, 474 U.S. 28, 30 , 106 S.Ct. 358 , 354, 88 L.Ed.2d 183 (1985). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Enmund v. Florida
green
2 sentences1990In answering this question, the Court "looked to the historical development of the punishment at issue, legislative judgments, international opinion, and the sentencing decisions juries have made before bringing its own judgment to bear on the matter." Enmund, 458 U.S. at 788-89 , 102 S.Ct. at 3372 . [20] In this case, however, the defendant cannot claim that he "neither took life, attempted to take life, nor intended to take life," i.e., Enmund. 1990In answering this question, the Court "looked to the historical development of the punishment at issue, legislative judgments, international opinion, and the sentencing decisions juries have made before bringing its own judgment to bear on the matter." Enmund, 458 U.S. at 788-89 , 102 S.Ct. at 3372 . [20] In this case, however, the defendant cannot claim that he "neither took life, attempted to take life, nor intended to take life," i.e., Enmund. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.