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

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-7-401 (2026)

Deferred prosecution

✓ 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(Repealed)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. 224, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 39-7-401. L. 75: (2) amended, p. 610, § 1, effective June 26. L. 77: (1) amended, p. 860, § 1, effective May 24. L. 81: (1) amended, p. 930, § 1, effective May 13. L. 83: (2) amended, p. 664, § 3, effective July 1. L. 85: (1) amended, p. 616, § 7, effective July 1. L. 94: (1) amended, p. 2036, § 15, 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 L. 2002: Entire section repealed, p. 1463, § 3, effective October 1.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 18-1.3-101.

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 13 cases, 1975–2014 · leading case: People v. Ybarra, 547 P.2d 925 (Colo. 1976).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Ybarra, 547 P.2d 925 (Colo. 1976). · cites it 9× “Under section 16-7-401, C.R.S. 1973, it is provided that when the defendant consents to deferred prosecution, “the defendant shall execute a written waiver” of his right to a speedy trial.”
People v. Bell, 669 P.2d 1381 (Colo. 1983). · cites it 3× “Section 16-7-401, C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl.Vol.”
United States v. Richard Bruce Cox, 934 F.2d 1114 (10th Cir. 1991). “Under Colorado law, a defendant does not enter a plea in the case of a deferred prosecution, see Colo.Rev.Stat. § 16-7-401, but must enter a plea in the case of a deferred judgment, see id.”
People v. Luevano, 670 P.2d 1 (Colo. 1983). · cites it 3× “The deferred sentencing statute, section 16-7-403, C.R.”
People v. Young, 710 P.2d 1140 (Colo. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “See § 16-7-401, C.R.S. (1984 Cum.Supp.) Restitution is also authorized in certain crimes against the elderly or handicapped.”
Turner v. Dist. Court in & for Tenth Jud. Dist., 533 P.2d 498 (Colo. 1975). · cites it 3× “44, 39-7-401, at 224; section 16-7-401, C.R.S. 1973; United States v.”
People v. Marmon, 903 P.2d 651 (Colo. 1995). “See § 16-7-401, 8A C.R.S. (1994 Supp.). Prosecution of the second degree forgery count relating to the falsification of the court clerk’s signatures was deferred for two years provided that the respondent complied with certain conditions, including that he not practice law for…”
People v. Method, 900 P.2d 1282 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “Section 16-7-403 (as does its companion, governing deferred prosecution, § 16-7-401, C.R.S. (1994 Cum.Supp.)) provides a means of resolving a criminal prosecution short of entering a judgment of conviction and imposing sentence.”
People in Interest of RWV, 942 P.2d 1317 (Colo. Ct. App. 1997). “Section 19-2-702(2); see also § 16-7-401, et seq., C.R.S. (1996 Cum.Supp.”
People v. Zabala, 706 P.2d 807 (Colo. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “Because he was under the supervision of the probation department, see *809 § 16-7-401(1), C.R.S. (1984 Cum.Supp.), filing of the revocation petition by the probation department in no way prejudiced the defendant.”
Rawson v. State, 900 P.2d 1136 (Wyo. 1995). “The State points out in its brief that one provision of Colorado law (Colo.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 16-7-401 (Supp. 1994)) permits deferred prosecution before a plea or adjudication of guilt, while another section of the Colorado law (Colo.”
People v. Doolittle, 713 P.2d 834 (Colo. 1985). “These charges resulted in a deferred prosecution on December 5, 1983, see § 16-7-401, 8 C.R.S. (1978 & 1984 Supp.), under the terms of which the respondent was to be supervised by a probation officer for two years, was required to pay costs and restitution totaling $4,826.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-7-401(1): 1 case
People v. Zabala, 706 P.2d 807 (Colo. Ct. App. 1985). “Because he was under the supervision of the probation department, see *809 § 16-7-401(1), C.R.S. (1984 Cum.Supp.), filing of the revocation petition by the probation department in no way prejudiced the defendant.”
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.