Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 16
Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-11-306 (2026)

Credit for presentence confinement

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(Repealed) Source: L. 72: R&RE, p. 249, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 39-11-306. L. 73: p. 506, § 1. L. 74:

(4) amended, p. 408, § 25, effective April 11. L. 77: (3) amended, p. 865, § 10, effective July 1, 1979. L. 79: Entire section R&RE, p. 665, § 7, effective July 1. L. 86: Entire section amended, p. 734, § 3, effective July 1. L. 88: Entire section amended, p. 663, § 2, effective July 1. L. 2002: Entire section repealed, p. 1463, § 3, effective October 1.

Editor's note: In 2002, this section was relocated to section 18-1.3-405.

Cross references: For the legislative declaration contained in the 2002 act repealing this section, see section 1 of chapter 318, Session Laws of Colorado 2002.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 84 cases, 1976–2017 · leading case: Schubert v. People, 698 P.2d 788 (Colo. 1985).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Schubert v. People, 698 P.2d 788 (Colo. 1985). · cites it 90× “The court of appeals held that section 16-11-306, 8 C.R.S. (1984 Supp.), requires a sentencing court to credit a defendant only for that part of presentence confinement attributable to the criminal transaction for which the defendant is to be sentenced and not for confinement…”
Godbold v. Dist. Court in & for the Twenty-First Jud. Dist., 623 P.2d 862 (Colo. 1981). · cites it 64× “He also contends that the equal protection guarantee requires that he be afforded retroactive relief under the provisions of section 16-11-306, C.R.S.1973 (1979 Supp.”
People v. Johnson, 797 P.2d 1296 (Colo. 1990). · cites it 16× “We granted certiorari to the court of appeals to consider whether that court erred in concluding that section 16-11-306, 8A C.R.S. (1986), required that presentence confinement credit be applied to a felony sentence, rather than to a consecutive misdemeanor sentence which was to…”
People v. Turman, 659 P.2d 1368 (Colo. 1983). · cites it 36× “Nor can I find any logic in a statutory scheme that purports to enhance rehabilitation and institutional discipline by a good time entitlement program, but categorically denies good time credit solely on the basis of the presentence character of the confinement, without regard…”
People v. Fransua, 2016 COA 79 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “7, § 16-11-306, 1979 Colo. Sess. Laws 665 -66.”
People v. Hardman, 653 P.2d 763 (Colo. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 9× “Pursuant to § 16-11-306, C.R.S.1973 (1981 Cum.Supp.), the trial court credited him with 143 days of pre-sentence confinement for the time he spent in custody in Colorado from June 1 to October 21, 1981.”
Massey v. People, 736 P.2d 19 (Colo. 1987). · cites it 24× “At the time of sentencing, the court shall make a finding of the amount of presentence confinement to which the offender is entitled and shall include such finding in the mittimus.”
Castro v. Dist. Court of Tenth Jud. Dist., 656 P.2d 1283 (Colo. 1982). · cites it 34× “Castro contends that the respondent court exceeded its jurisdiction by refusing to follow section 16-11-306, C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl.”
Beecroft v. People, 874 P.2d 1041 (Colo. 1994). · cites it 22× “1993), which held that a suspended sentence conditioned on drug treatment in a Cenikor facility does not constitute “confinement” for purposes of section 16-11-306, 8A C.R.S. (1986). 1 As a result of this holding, the court of appeals concluded that the defendant, Karl Beecroft,…”
Meredith v. Zavaras, 954 P.2d 597 (Colo. 1998). · cites it 26× “The DOC asserted that section 16-11-306, 6 C.R.S. (1997), [3] precluded the Denver *600 Court from applying the presentence confinement credit to the second sentence.”
People v. Torrez, 2017 CO 91 (Colo. 2017). · cites it 18× “The trial court refused, and the court of appeals affirmed, finding that the statute—which at the time provided that “[a] person who is confined prior to the imposition of sentence is entitled to credit against the term of his sentence”6—“implicitly limits the right to…”
Fields v. Suthers, 984 P.2d 1167 (Colo. 1999). · cites it 20× “Presentence confinement credit was governed by section 16-11-306, 8 C.R.S. (1981 Supp.), which provided: 16-11-306.”
Show all 84 citing cases →
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-11-306(1): 1 case
People v. Emig, 676 P.2d 1156 (Colo. 1984).
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-11-306(2): 2 cases
People v. Lobato, 559 P.2d 224 (Colo. 1977).
People v. Lobato, 559 P.2d 224 (Colo. 1977).
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-11-306(3): 5 cases
Schubert v. People, 698 P.2d 788 (Colo. 1985). “The court of appeals held that section 16-11-306, 8 C.R.S. (1984 Supp.), requires a sentencing court to credit a defendant only for that part of presentence confinement attributable to the criminal transaction for which the defendant is to be sentenced and not for confinement…”
Perea v. Dist. Court in & for Sixth Jud. Dist., 604 P.2d 25 (Colo. 1979).
People v. Emig, 676 P.2d 1156 (Colo. 1984).
People v. Martinez, 559 P.2d 228 (Colo. 1977).
Perea v. Dist. Court in & for the Sixth Jud. Dist., 604 P.2d 25 (Colo. 1979).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.