scheduled hearing in Colorado

2019SUMMARY November 14, 2019 2019COA171 No. 18CA1918, In Interest of Spohr — Probate — Persons Under Disability — Guardianship of Incapacitated Person — Notice A division of the court of appeals considers whether the guardianship notice statute, section 15-14-309, C.R.S. 2019, requires notice to the respondent by personal service of a rescheduled guardianship hearing where the respondent was given proper notice of an earlier scheduled hearing.

2008On appeal, the court concluded that the docket entries and notice were not testimonial because their primary purpose "was not to document facts or events for future prosecution, but rather to satisfy administrative functions necessary to the operation of the court," and the notice's primary purpose was "not to replace live testimony in a speculative future prosecution, the predicate for which may never occur," but "to provide official written notice to the defendant about his or her future court date(s) and to chronicle that such notice was given." Jackson, 924 A.2d at 1021 .

1990See, e.g., People v. Smith, 673 P.2d 1026 (Colo.Ct.App.1983) (court holds that under conditions of bail bond agreement, which stated that the “defendant shall ... not depart [the court] without leave,” trial court could permit defendant’s absence at a scheduled hearing; thus, such action did not materially change a condition of the bond contract); People v. Rincon, 43 Colo.App. 155 , 603 P.2d 953 (1979) (court holds that trial court did not materially alter the surety contract by permitting the defendant to leave the state where, as a condition of the bond, defendant agreed to not leave the st

1990See, e.g., People v. Smith, 673 P.2d 1026 (Colo.Ct.App.1983) (court holds that under conditions of bail bond agreement, which stated that the “defendant shall ... not depart [the court] without leave,” trial court could permit defendant’s absence at a scheduled hearing; thus, such action did not materially change a condition of the bond contract); People v. Rincon, 43 Colo.App. 155 , 603 P.2d 953 (1979) (court holds that trial court did not materially alter the surety contract by permitting the defendant to leave the state where, as a condition of the bond, defendant agreed to not leave the st

1987People in Interest of M.M., supra. Here, the trial court had already granted several continuances, one because another attorney appointed by legal services had not been prepared prior to a scheduled hearing.

1983The sureties next cite People v. Campbell, 633 P.2d 509 (Colo.App.1981) in support of the contention that when a defendant fails to appear at a scheduled hearing and no valid reason or excuse is given for his absence, a forfeiture should be ordered.

1978He requested that he be freed of the restraints during the hearing so that he could properly represent *97 himself citing Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975).

1978He requested that he be freed of the restraints during the hearing so that he could properly represent *97 himself citing Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975).