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 1997–2019 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Byrd v. Peoplegreen2 sentences2013Thus, a preliminary hearing is part of a criminal prosecution and will determine whether a parmcular defendant will be tried. $40 A revocation of probation hearing, in contrast, is not part of a eriminal prosecution, and the State has an "'over whelming interest' in returning an individual to prison without the burden and associated costs of mounting a. new criminal trial," Loveall, 231 P.3d at 414 (quoting Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 483 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972)) Therefore, a defendant's due process rights during a probation revocation hearing are less than his or her righ 2003See § 18-1.3-102(2), C.R.S. 2002 (in deferred judgment revocation hearings, “the procedural safeguards required in a revocation of probation hearing shall apply”); § 16-11-206(3), C.R.S.2002 (in probation revocation hearings, “[a]ny evidence having probative value shall be received regardless of its admissibility under the exclusionary rules of evidence”); People v. Wilkerson, 189 Colo. 448, 451 , 541 P.2d 896, 898 (1975)(a defendant in a probation revocation proceeding “cannot complain of the admission of illegally seized evidence”); see also Byrd v. People, 58 P.3d 50, 56 (Colo.2002)(“the ex | 2 | 2 |
Strickland v. Peoplegreen1 sentence2019Accord Strickland v. People, 594 P.2d 578, 579 (Colo. 1979) (holding—in the deferred judgment context—that before a court may revoke probation for failure to pay restitution, it must find the defendant had the ability to pay). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Wilkersongreen2 sentences2003See § 18-1.3-102(2), C.R.S. 2002 (in deferred judgment revocation hearings, “the procedural safeguards required in a revocation of probation hearing shall apply”); § 16-11-206(3), C.R.S.2002 (in probation revocation hearings, “[a]ny evidence having probative value shall be received regardless of its admissibility under the exclusionary rules of evidence”); People v. Wilkerson, 189 Colo. 448, 451 , 541 P.2d 896, 898 (1975)(a defendant in a probation revocation proceeding “cannot complain of the admission of illegally seized evidence”); see also Byrd v. People, 58 P.3d 50, 56 (Colo.2002)(“the ex 2003See § 18-1.3-102(2), C.R.S. 2002 (in deferred judgment revocation hearings, “the procedural safeguards required in a revocation of probation hearing shall apply”); § 16-11-206(3), C.R.S.2002 (in probation revocation hearings, “[a]ny evidence having probative value shall be received regardless of its admissibility under the exclusionary rules of evidence”); People v. Wilkerson, 189 Colo. 448, 451 , 541 P.2d 896, 898 (1975)(a defendant in a probation revocation proceeding “cannot complain of the admission of illegally seized evidence”); see also Byrd v. People, 58 P.3d 50, 56 (Colo.2002)(“the ex | 1 | 1 |
People v. Varnergreen2 sentences1997Due process requires that, prior to revocation of probation, a defendant must receive a hearing at which he is allowed “to be heard in person, present evidence in his own behalf, and confront and examine adverse witnesses.” People v. Varner, 181 Colo. 146, 149 , 508 P.2d 390, 391 (1973), citing Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 , 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972). 1997Due process requires that, prior to revocation of probation, a defendant must receive a hearing at which he is allowed “to be heard in person, present evidence in his own behalf, and confront and examine adverse witnesses.” People v. Varner, 181 Colo. 146, 149 , 508 P.2d 390, 391 (1973), citing Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 , 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Morrissey v. Brewer
green
2 sentences2013Thus, a preliminary hearing is part of a criminal prosecution and will determine whether a parmcular defendant will be tried. $40 A revocation of probation hearing, in contrast, is not part of a eriminal prosecution, and the State has an "'over whelming interest' in returning an individual to prison without the burden and associated costs of mounting a. new criminal trial," Loveall, 231 P.3d at 414 (quoting Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 483 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972)) Therefore, a defendant's due process rights during a probation revocation hearing are less than his or her righ 2013Thus, a preliminary hearing is part of a criminal prosecution and will determine whether a parmcular defendant will be tried. $40 A revocation of probation hearing, in contrast, is not part of a eriminal prosecution, and the State has an "'over whelming interest' in returning an individual to prison without the burden and associated costs of mounting a. new criminal trial," Loveall, 231 P.3d at 414 (quoting Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 483 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972)) Therefore, a defendant's due process rights during a probation revocation hearing are less than his or her righ | 2 | 1997–2013 |
Bearden v. Georgia
green
2 sentences2019Bearden mentioned only two State interests in sentencing: punishment and deterrence. 461 U.S. at 671 -72 , 103 S.Ct. 2064 . 2019Bearden mentioned only two State interests in sentencing: punishment and deterrence. 461 U.S. at 671 -72 , 103 S.Ct. 2064 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
People v. Loveall
green
1 sentence2013Thus, a preliminary hearing is part of a criminal prosecution and will determine whether a parmcular defendant will be tried. $40 A revocation of probation hearing, in contrast, is not part of a eriminal prosecution, and the State has an "'over whelming interest' in returning an individual to prison without the burden and associated costs of mounting a. new criminal trial," Loveall, 231 P.3d at 414 (quoting Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 483 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972)) Therefore, a defendant's due process rights during a probation revocation hearing are less than his or her righ | 1 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Allen
green
1 sentence2012Rather, they are only entitled to "the same procedural safeguards as [defendants] in [proceedings] to revoke probation." Id. at 623 ; § 18-1.3-102(2) ("[The procedural safeguards required in a revocation of probation hearing shall apply."). 131 The procedural safeguards that apply in probation revocation hearings include statutory rights, such as the right to have the court advise "the probationer of the charges against him and the possible penalties therefor." § 16-11-206(2), C.R.S.2011; see also Crim. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
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.