5 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2025 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
v. Cooleygreen1 sentence2025See People v. Cooley, 2020 COA 101, ¶ 24 (“Raising the ‘sum and substance’ of an argument is sufficient to preserve it.”) (citation omitted). 7 “any authority in the court to re-commit to community corrections an offender rejected therefrom”). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Padillagreen1 sentence2022See Padilla , 907 P.2d at 609 (citing United States v. Gilt ner , 889 F.2d 1004, 1008 (11th Cir. 1989), for the proposition that such right does not encompass the right to an evidentiary hearing o r to “call and cr oss-examine witnesses to rebut the information ” relied upon by the sentencing court). ¶ 33 I n allowing defense counsel to read the juror’s full writt en statement into the record, the trial court emphasized its desire to “ err on the side of letting [Gonzalez] present the evidence he t hinks he needs for sentencing.” Its decision not to allow the juror to testify directly was supp | 1 | 1 |
People v. Borregogreen1 sentence2022See Borrego , 774 P.2d at 85 5. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Michael Giltnergreen1 sentence2022See Padilla , 907 P.2d at 609 (citing United States v. Gilt ner , 889 F.2d 1004, 1008 (11th Cir. 1989), for the proposition that such right does not encompass the right to an evidentiary hearing o r to “call and cr oss-examine witnesses to rebut the information ” relied upon by the sentencing court). ¶ 33 I n allowing defense counsel to read the juror’s full writt en statement into the record, the trial court emphasized its desire to “ err on the side of letting [Gonzalez] present the evidence he t hinks he needs for sentencing.” Its decision not to allow the juror to testify directly was supp | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Christina T.green2 sentences1987See Matter of Christina T., supra ; see also People in Interest of J.B., 702 P.2d 753 (Colo.App. 1985). 1987See Matter of Christina T., supra; see also People in Interest of J.B., 702 P.2d 753 (Colo.App.1985). | 1 | 1 |
People in Interest of JBgreen2 sentences1987See Matter of Christina T., supra ; see also People in Interest of J.B., 702 P.2d 753 (Colo.App. 1985). 1987See Matter of Christina T., supra; see also People in Interest of J.B., 702 P.2d 753 (Colo.App.1985). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Custis v. United States
green
2 sentences1996A. In Custis v. United States, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 1732 , 128 L.Ed.2d 517 (1994), the United States Supreme Court addressed the issue of a defendant’s right to challenge the validity of prior convictions at a subsequent sentencing hearing in which the prior convictions will affect the defendant’s sentence. 1996A. In Custis v. United States, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 1732 , 128 L.Ed.2d 517 (1994), the United States Supreme Court addressed the issue of a defendant’s right to challenge the validity of prior convictions at a subsequent sentencing hearing in which the prior convictions will affect the defendant’s sentence. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Arnett v. Kennedy
green
2 sentences1991In denying the community corrections offender the right to an evidentiary hearing prior to resentencing, the majority emphasizes the 1989 amendment to sections 17-27-103(3) and 17-27-114(2), which states that “[t]he sentencing court is not required to provide the offender with an evidentiary hearing prior to resentencing.” The majority’s reasoning appears to follow the “bitter-sweet” analysis articulated by Justice Rehnquist in Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134 , 94 S.Ct. 1633 , 40 L.Ed.2d 15 (1974). 1991In denying the community corrections offender the right to an evidentiary hearing prior to resentencing, the majority emphasizes the 1989 amendment to sections 17-27-103(3) and 17-27-114(2), which states that “[t]he sentencing court is not required to provide the offender with an evidentiary hearing prior to resentencing.” The majority’s reasoning appears to follow the “bitter-sweet” analysis articulated by Justice Rehnquist in Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134 , 94 S.Ct. 1633 , 40 L.Ed.2d 15 (1974). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.