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 1982–2025 3 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. Byrnegreen2 sentences2021People v. DeGreat, 2020 CO 25, ¶ 13 , 461 P.3d 11, 15 ; People v. Gallegos, 946 P.2d 946, 949 (Colo. 1997); People v. Byrne, 762 P.2d 674, 676 (Colo. 1988). ¶18 The People argue that three of the enumerated statutory tolling provisions could be applicable to this case. 2020People v. Gallegos, 946 P.2d 946, 949 (Colo. 1997); People v. Byrne, 762 P.2d 674, 676 (Colo. 1988). ¶14 One exception to the six-month rule, contained in section 18-1-405(6)(f), provides that “[i]n computing the time within which a defendant shall be brought to trial,” the court must exclude “[t]he period of any delay caused at the instance of the defendant.” In other cases in which the interpretation of section 18-1-405(6)(f) was at issue, we have emphasized that “[t]he key . . . is to determine whether the defendant caused the delay. | 4 | 4 |
People v. Gallegosgreen2 sentences2021People v. DeGreat, 2020 CO 25, ¶ 13 , 461 P.3d 11, 15 ; People v. Gallegos, 946 P.2d 946, 949 (Colo. 1997); People v. Byrne, 762 P.2d 674, 676 (Colo. 1988). ¶18 The People argue that three of the enumerated statutory tolling provisions could be applicable to this case. 2020People v. Gallegos, 946 P.2d 946, 949 (Colo. 1997); People v. Byrne, 762 P.2d 674, 676 (Colo. 1988). ¶14 One exception to the six-month rule, contained in section 18-1-405(6)(f), provides that “[i]n computing the time within which a defendant shall be brought to trial,” the court must exclude “[t]he period of any delay caused at the instance of the defendant.” In other cases in which the interpretation of section 18-1-405(6)(f) was at issue, we have emphasized that “[t]he key . . . is to determine whether the defendant caused the delay. | 3 | 3 |
People v. Bellgreen1 sentence2020If the delay is caused by, agreed to, or created at the instance of the defendant, it will be excluded from the speedy-trial calculation made by the court.” People v. Bell, 669 P.2d 1381, 1384 (Colo. 1983). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In re People v. DeGreat
green
2 sentences2025But the 13 speedy trial statute “leaves no discretion for the trial court to make exceptions to the six-month rule beyond those specifically enumerated.” People v. DeGreat, 2020 CO 25, ¶ 13 , 461 P.3d 11, 15 . 2025But the 13 speedy trial statute “leaves no discretion for the trial court to make exceptions to the six-month rule beyond those specifically enumerated.” People v. DeGreat, 2020 CO 25, ¶ 13 , 461 P.3d 11, 15 . | 3 | 2021–2025 |
Carr v. District Court in & for Eighth Judicial Dist.
green
2 sentences1982Carr v. District Court, 190 Colo. 125 , 543 P.2d 1253 (1975). 1982Carr v. District Court, 190 Colo. 125 , 543 P.2d 1253 (1975). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.