People v. Bielecki, 588 P.2d 377 (Colo. Ct. App. 1978). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Bielecki, 588 P.2d 377 (Colo. Ct. App. 1978). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
33 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 14 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Almly (arizctapp, 2007-07-31)
Treatment trajectory · 1978 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1978 2002 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Almly
Ariz. Ct. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
Fex v. Michigan, 507 U.S. 43, 52 , 113 S.Ct. 1085 , 122 L.Ed.2d 406 (1993); People v. Bielecki, 41 Colo. App. 256 , 588 P.2d 377, 378 (1978); State v. White, 234 Kan. 340 , 673 P.2d 1106, 1110 (1983); State v. Ternaku, 156 N.J.Super. 30 , 383 A.2d 437, 439 (Ct.App.Div.1978).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Sprague
N.H. · 2001 · confidence medium
P. 45(a) to extend 180-day limit); People v. Bielecki, 588 P.2d 377, 378 (Colo. Ct. App. 1978) (applying state law on construction of statutes); Moon v. State, 375 S.E.2d 442 , 447 n. 2 (Ga. 1988), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1224 (1991); White, 673 P.2d at 1111 (applying state rule of criminal procedure); People v. Malone, 442 N.W.2d 658 , 660 n. 5 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989); State v. Alderete, 625 P.2d 1208, 1209 (N.M.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) David Andrew Birdwell v. Jack Skeen, Jr., Criminal District Attorney of Smith County, Texas
5th Cir. · 1993 · confidence medium
People v. Fex, 439 Mich. 117 , 479 N.W.2d 625, 626 (Mich.), cert. granted, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 1935 , 118 L.Ed.2d 542 (1992); State v. Braswell, 194 Conn. 297 , 481 A.2d 413, 417 (1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1112 , 105 S.Ct. 793 , 83 L.Ed.2d 786 (1985); State v. White, 234 Kan. 340 , 673 P.2d 1106, 1110 (1983); People v. Hood, 223 Ill.App.3d 157 , 164 Ill.Dec. 851, 854 , 583 N.E.2d 1173, 1176 (1991), appeal denied, 144 Ill.2d 638 , 169 Ill.Dec. 147 , 591 N.E.2d 27 (1992); State v. Whittemore, 166 Wis.2d 127 , 479 N.W.2d 566, 569 (Wis.Ct.App.1991), review denied, — Wis.2d -, 482 N.W.2d 10…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Larry Johnson
9th Cir. · 1992 · confidence medium
E.g., People v. Bielecki, 588 P.2d 377, 378 (Colo.Ct.App.1978); State v. Butler, 496 So.2d 916, 916 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1986); Moon v. State, 258 Ga. 748 , 375 S.E.2d 442 , 447 n. 2 (1988); State v. White, 234 Kan. 340 , 673 P.2d 1106, 1111 (1983); People v. Malone, 177 Mich.App. 393 , 442 N.W.2d 658 , 660 n. 5 (1989); State v. Alderete, 95 N.M. 691 , 625 P.2d 1208, 1209 (1980). 11 .
examined Cited as authority (rule) State v. Walton (3×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Mo. · 1987 · confidence medium
Barring amendment of the IAD to meet this problem, we adopt and apply the Spears approach, see supra note 4, to this and future cases. [7] See, e.g., People v. Bielecki, 41 Colo.App. 256, 258 , 588 P.2d 377, 378 (1978); State v. Braswell, 194 Conn. 297, 304 , 481 A.2d 413, 417 , cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1112 , 105 S.Ct. 793 , 83 L.Ed.2d 786 (1984); Pinnock v. State, 384 So.2d 738, 739 (Fla.Ct.App.1980); Holland v. State, 265 Ind. 216, 223 , 352 N.E.2d 752, 757 (1976); State v. White, 234 Kan. 340, 344 , 673 P.2d 1106, 1110 (1983) (citing State v. Arwood, 46 Or.App. 653, 655-56 , 612 P.2d 763 (19…
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Gilchrest
Wash. Ct. App. · 1984 · confidence medium
See People v. Castoe, 86 Cal. App. 3d 484 , 150 Cal. Rptr. 237, 240 (1978); People v. Bielecki, 41 Colo. App. 256 , 588 P.2d 377, 378 (1978); People v. Daily, 46 Ill.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) David Andrew BIRDWELL v. Jack SKEEN, Jr., Criminal District Attorney of Smith County, Texas
unknown court · confidence medium
People v. Fex, 439 Mich. 117 , 479 N.W.2d 625, 626 (Mich.), cert. granted, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 1935 , 118 L.Ed.2d 542 (1992); State v. Braswell, 194 Conn. 297 , 481 A.2d 413, 417 (1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1112 , 105 S.Ct. 793 , 83 L.Ed.2d 786 (1985); State v. White, 234 Kan. 340 , 673 P.2d 1106, 1110 (1983); People v. Hood, 223 Ill.App.3d 157 , 164 Ill.Dec. 851, 854 , 583 N.E.2d 1173, 1176 (1991), appeal denied, 144 Ill.2d 638 , 169 Ill.Dec. 147 , 591 N.E.2d 27 (1992); State v. Whittemore, 166 Wis.2d 127 , 479 N.W.2d 566, 569 (Wis.Ct.App.1991), review denied, --- Wis.2d ----, 482 N.W…
examined Cited "see" State v. White (3×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Kan. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See People v. Bielecki, 41 Colo. App. at 258 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Donald G. Johnson v. Alan A. Stagner, Warden (2×)
9th Cir. · 1986 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., People v. Bielecki, 41 Colo.App. 256 , 588 P.2d 377, 378 (1978); Holland v. State, 265 Ind. 216 , 352 N.E.2d 752, 757 (1976); State v. Ternaku, 156 N.J.Super. 30 , 383 A.2d 437, 439 (1978).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Sweat v. Darr (2×)
Kan. Ct. App. · 1984 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., People v. Bielecki, 41 Colo. App. 256, 258 , 588 P.2d 377 (1978); State v. Arwood, 46 Or.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Lawrence L. BIELECKI, Defendant-Appellant.
77-604.
Colorado Court of Appeals.
Aug 10, 1978.
588 P.2d 377
Pierce.
Cited by 17 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 82%
Citer courts: Supreme Court of Colorado (1)

[*378] J. D. MacFarlane, Atty. Gen., David W. Robbins, Deputy Atty. Gen., Edward G. Donovan, Sol. Gen., Karen Hoffman Seymour, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.

Rollie R. Rogers, Colorado State Public Defender, Richard D. Irvin, Deputy State Public Defender, Boulder, for defendant-appellant.

PIERCE, Judge.

Defendant, Lawrence L. Bielecki, appeals his conviction of second degree burglary (§ 18-4-203, C.R.S.1973) and felony theft (§ 18-4-401(2), C.R.S.1973, 1976 Cum.Supp.). We affirm.

Ample evidence was presented to establish that defendant had, without permission, taken some jewelry from a dresser drawer in the victim's apartment and sold at least one of the items to a pawnbroker.

Defendant's principal contention is that the information should have been dismissed because his trial did not take place within the 180 day period prescribed by Article III of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (§ 24-60-501(III), C.R.S.1973). We disagree.

The parties stipulated to the relevant dates. Defendant was incarcerated in California when a detainer from the instant case was placed on him.[1] Pursuant to the Interstate Agreement, he executed a request for disposition, which request was received by the Denver District Attorney's office on July 30, 1976. The district attorney filed the request with the district court on August 3. Trial was commenced on January 31, 1977, and completed February 2, 1977.

Article III of the Interstate Agreement (§ 24-60-501(III), C.R.S.1973), provides in pertinent part:

"Whenever a person has entered upon a term of imprisonment in a penal or correctional institution of a party state, and whenever during the continuance of the term of imprisonment there is pending in any other party state any untried indictment, information, or complaint on the basis of which a detainer has been lodged against the prisoner, he shall be brought to trial within 180 days after he shall have caused to be delivered to the prosecuting officer and the appropriate court of the prosecuting officer's jurisdiction written notice of the place of his imprisonment and his request for a final disposition to be made of the indictment, information or complaint ...." (emphasis added).

Here, though the district attorney received the request on July 30, the district court did not receive it until August 3. Accordingly, the 180 day period began to run on August 3, 1976, and thus ended on January 30, 1977, which was a Sunday. Since trial commenced the next day, it was within the 180 day period. Section 2-4-108(2), C.R.S.1973.

Defendant also argues that he was entitled to an instruction on the lesser included offense of misdemeanor theft (§ 18-4-401(3), C.R.S.1973, 1976 Cum.Supp.). We disagree.

[*379] The victim of the theft testified that the stolen items were worth $1,500. The pawnbroker estimated the value of one item alone to be $350. Since this testimony was unrebutted, the only conclusions to be drawn from the evidence were that defendant was guilty of felony theft or not guilty. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in refusing defendant's tendered instruction on misdemeanor theft. Section 18-1-408(6), C.R.S.1973; People v. Lundy, 188 Colo. 194, 533 P.2d 920 (1975).

We have reviewed the balance of defendant's contentions, and find them to be without merit.

Judgment affirmed.

SMITH and KELLY, JJ., concur.

1 California is a member of the Interstate Agreement by virtue of Cal.Penal Code § 1389, et seq. (West 1970).