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

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-14-101 (2026)

Short title

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

This article shall be known and may be cited as the "Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act".

Source: L. 69: p. 292, § 8. C.R.S. 1963: § 39-23-8.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 54 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1975–2026 · leading case: v. Draper, 2021 COA 120 (Colo. Ct. App. 2021).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
v. Draper, 2021 COA 120 (Colo. Ct. App. 2021). “Draper claims that the following alleged errors require either the reversal or vacation of his convictions:  instructional error;  violations of the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act (UMDDA), sections 16-14-101 to -108, C.R.S. 2020;  improper consolidation;  the…”
People v. Shreck, 107 P.3d 1048 (Colo. Ct. App. 2004). “Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act Defendant contends that the trial court erred in not dismissing his case because of a violation of the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act (UMDDA), § 16-14-101, et seq., C.R.S.2003. We disagree.”
People v. Glasser, 293 P.3d 68 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011). “Analysis Defendant challenges the trial court's (1) denial of his motion to suppress the DNA evidence collected in Arapahoe County, (2) admission of other acts evidence, (8) denial of his motion to dismiss based on a violation of the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of De-tainers…”
Moody v. Corsentino, 843 P.2d 1355 (Colo. 1993). · cites it 2× “[16] B Moody contends that his rights under the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act (UMDDA), §§ 16-14-101 to -108, 8A C.R.S. (1986 & 1992 Supp.”
People v. Allen, 744 P.2d 73 (Colo. 1987). · cites it 4× “People , we interpreted the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act (Uniform Act), section 16-14-101 to -108, 8A C.R.S. (1986), and held that a defendant should not automatically be deprived of the protection afforded by the notification requirement of section 16-14-103…”
People v. Campbell, 742 P.2d 302 (Colo. 1987). · cites it 3× “The district court dismissed the charges on the basis of a finding and conclusion that the defendant had not been brought to trial within ninety days of receipt of his request for final disposition of the charges, in violation of his rights under the Uniform Mandatory…”
People v. Mascarenas, 666 P.2d 101 (Colo. 1983). · cites it 2× “These consolidated appeals involving the same defendant raise similar issues under Colorado’s Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act, sections 16-14-101 to 108, C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl.”
People v. McKimmy, 2014 CO 76 (Colo. 2014). · cites it 3× “ ¶1     This case requires us to clarify the process for invoking one’s rights under the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act (“the UMDDA” or “the Act”), §§ 16-14-101 to -108, C.R.S. (2014). When prisoners strictly comply with the UMDDA’s…”
People v. Bost, 770 P.2d 1209 (Colo. 1989). · cites it 3× “On the same day in 1969 the Colorado General Assembly adopted two acts addressing the problem of outstanding detain-ers: the IAD and the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act (the UMDDA), §§ 16-14-101 to -108, 8A C.R.S. (1986). Ch.”
People v. Anderson, 649 P.2d 720 (Colo. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 2× “Defendant's first contention is that the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act, § 16-14-101 through XX-XX-XXX, C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl.”
Moen v. Wilson, 536 P.2d 1129 (Colo. 1975). · cites it 3× “13 Now section 16-14-101, C.R.S. 1973. 14 Now section 16-19-104, C.”
Johnson v. People, 939 P.2d 817 (Colo. 1997). · cites it 2× “The court of appeals reversed the trial court’s order, concluding that the IAD is mandatory and Johnson had not strictly complied with its provisions.”
Show all 54 citing cases →
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.