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 1 courts 1986–2024 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. Rockwellgreen1 sentence2024P. 35(a) that the sentence is inconsistent with the statutory scheme, and the assertion of a claim that a sentence was imposed in violation of the constitution, which can involve a claim that the conviction itself is defective.”) (citations omitted); see also Rockwell, 125 P.3d at 422 (Coats, J., concurring in the judgment) (“[T]he defendant’s challenge to the factual basis for his offense only secondarily implicates the legality of his sentence. . . . | 1 | 1 |
Hill v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2009See Wenzinger, 155 P.3d at 418; see also Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 430 , 82 S.Ct. 468 , 7 L.Ed.2d 417 (1962) ("[Tlhe narrow function of Rule 35 is to permit correction at any time of an illegal sentence, not to re-examine errors occurring at the trial or other proceedings prior to the imposition of sentence."). 2009See Wenzinger, 155 P.3d at 418; see also Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 430 , 82 S.Ct. 468 , 7 L.Ed.2d 417 (1962) ("[Tlhe narrow function of Rule 35 is to permit correction at any time of an illegal sentence, not to re-examine errors occurring at the trial or other proceedings prior to the imposition of sentence."). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Wenzingergreen1 sentence2009See Wenzinger, 155 P.3d at 418; see also Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 430 , 82 S.Ct. 468 , 7 L.Ed.2d 417 (1962) ("[Tlhe narrow function of Rule 35 is to permit correction at any time of an illegal sentence, not to re-examine errors occurring at the trial or other proceedings prior to the imposition of sentence."). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Forma Scientific, Inc. v. BioSera, Inc.
green
2 sentences2006P. 35(c) allows motions for postconviction relief based upon allegations a sentence was imposed in violation of the federal or state constitution); cf. Forma Scientific, Inc. v. BioSera, Inc., 960 P.2d 108 (Colo.1998)(recognizing cases interpreting Fed.R.Evid. 407 were superseded by amendments to the rule). 2006P. 35(c) allows motions for post-conviction relief based upon allegations a sentence was imposed in violation of the federal or state constitution); cf. Forma Scientific, Inc. v. BioSera, Inc., 960 P.2d 108 (Colo.1998)(recognizing cases interpreting Fed.R.Evid. 407 were superseded by amendments to the rule). | 3 | 2006–2006 |
People v. Turman
green
1 sentence1986Crim.P. 35(c)(2)(I) and 35(c)(2)(IV) and Crim.P. 35(c)(3); People v. Turman, 659 P.2d 1368 (Colo.1983). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.