Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 17-22.5-303 (2026)

Parole

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) As to any person sentenced for a class 2, class 3, class 4, or class 5 felony committed on or after July 1, 1979, but before July 1, 1981, the division of adult parole shall provide a one-year period of parole supervision and assistance in securing employment, housing, and such other services as may effect the successful reintegration of such offender into the community while recognizing the need for public safety; except that the state board of parole may discharge an offender at any time during the year upon a determination that the offender has been sufficiently rehabilitated and reintegrated into society and can no longer benefit from parole supervision. The conditions of parole for any such person shall be established by the state board of parole prior to his release from incarceration. Upon a determination that the conditions of parole have been violated in any parole revocation proceeding, the state board of parole shall continue the parole in effect, modify the conditions of parole if circumstances then shown to exist require such modifications, or revoke the parole and order the return of the offender to the institution in which he was originally received for a period of not more than six months. For second and subsequent revocations of parole, the offender shall be reincarcerated; but in no event shall any such person spend more than one year under parole supervision and reincarceration as provided in this section. The good time deduction authorized by section 17-22.5-301 shall apply to periods of reincarceration provided for in this section.

(2) As to any person sentenced for a class 2, class 3, class 4, or class 5 felony committed on or after July 1, 1981, and before July 1, 1984, the division of adult parole shall provide a one- year period of parole supervision and assistance in securing employment, housing, and such other services as may effect the successful reintegration of such offender into the community while recognizing the need for public safety; except that the state board of parole may discharge an offender at any time during the year upon a determination that the offender has been sufficiently rehabilitated and reintegrated into society and can no longer benefit from parole supervision. The conditions of parole for any such person shall be subject to section 17-2-201 (5)(b) and (5)(c) prior to his or her release from incarceration; but in no event shall any such person whose initial parole has not been revoked spend more than one year under parole supervision, as provided in this section. Upon a determination that the conditions of parole have been violated in any such parole revocation proceeding, the state board of parole shall continue the parole in effect, modify the conditions of parole if circumstances then shown to exist require such modifications, or revoke the parole and order the return of the offender to the institution in which he or she was originally received for a period of not more than two years; but in no event shall any period of reincarceration, subsequent term of parole, and sentence actually served exceed the sentence imposed pursuant to section 18-1.3-401, C.R.S. The good time deduction authorized by section 17-22.5-301 shall apply to periods of reincarceration provided for in this section.

(3) The state board of parole, working in conjunction with the department, shall adopt risk assessment guidelines, based upon risk of violence to the general population, to be utilized for determining whether any person sentenced pursuant to the provisions of section 18-1.3-401, C.R.S., for committing a class 2, class 3, class 4, or class 5 felony committed on or after July 1, 1984, but before July 1, 1985, may be suitable for release on his or her parole eligibility date or shall be subject to extended parole of up to three years. Such guidelines shall include provisions which take into consideration the progress toward rehabilitation made by the individual as well as the necessity of guarding the welfare of the community.

(4) As to any person sentenced for a class 2, class 3, class 4, or class 5 felony committed on or after July 1, 1984, but before July 1, 1985, the division of adult parole shall either release an offender on his or her parole eligibility date, pursuant to the determination made by the state board of parole, or shall provide up to three years of parole for any offender who is determined by the state board of parole to present a high risk to the general population upon release from incarceration. For persons who are provided parole, the division of adult parole shall provide a period of up to three years of parole supervision and assistance in securing employment, housing, and such other services as may effect the successful reintegration of such offender into the community while recognizing the need for public safety. The conditions for parole for any such offender under this subsection (4) shall be established pursuant to section 17-2-201 (5)(b) and (5)(c) by the state board of parole prior to his or her release from incarceration. Upon a determination that the conditions of parole have been violated in a parole revocation proceeding, the state board of parole shall continue the parole in effect, modify the conditions of parole if circumstances then shown to exist require such modifications, or revoke the parole and order the return of the offender to the institution in which he or she was originally received for a period of not more than five years. In no event shall any period of reincarceration, subsequent term of parole, and sentence actually served exceed the sentence imposed pursuant to section 18-1.3- 401, C.R.S. The state board of parole may discharge an offender granted parole under this section at any time during the term of parole upon a determination that the offender has been sufficiently rehabilitated and reintegrated into society and can no longer benefit from parole supervision. The good time deduction authorized by section 17-22.5-301 shall apply to periods of reincarceration provided for in this section.

(5) Pursuant to section 17-2-201 (9)(a), an interview of an inmate who applies for parole, who was sentenced for an offense committed on or after July 1, 1979, may be conducted by one member of the parole board.

(6) Any person sentenced for a class 2, class 3, class 4, class 5, or class 6 felony committed on or after July 1, 1985, shall be eligible for parole after such person has served the sentence imposed less any time authorized for good time earned pursuant to section 17-22.5-301 and for earned time pursuant to section 17-22.5-302. Upon an application for parole, the state board of parole, working in conjunction with the department and using the guidelines established pursuant to section 17-22.5-404, shall determine whether or not to grant parole and, if granted, the length of the period of parole, which may be for a period of up to five years. If an application for parole is refused by the state board of parole, the state board shall reconsider within one year thereafter the granting of parole to such person and shall continue the reconsideration each year thereafter until such person is granted parole or until such person is discharged pursuant to law; except that, if the person applying for parole was convicted of any class 3 sexual offense described in part 4 of article 3 of title 18, C.R.S., a habitual criminal offense as defined in section 18-1.3-801 (2.5), C.R.S., or of any offense subject to the requirements of section 18-1.3-904, C.R.S., the board need only reconsider granting parole to such person once every three years, until the board grants such person parole or until such person is discharged pursuant to law, or if the person applying for parole was convicted of a class 1 or class 2 felony that constitutes a crime of violence, as defined in section 18-1.3-406, C.R.S., the board need only reconsider granting parole to such person once every five years, until the board grants such person parole or until such person is discharged pursuant to law.

(7) For persons who are granted parole pursuant to subsection (6) of this section, the division of adult parole shall provide a period of up to five years of parole supervision and assistance in securing employment, housing, and such other services as may effect the successful reintegration of such offender into the community while recognizing the need for public safety. The conditions for parole for any such offender under this subsection (7) shall be established pursuant to section 17-22.5-404 by the state board of parole prior to such offender's release from incarceration. Upon a determination that the conditions of parole have been violated in a parole revocation proceeding, the state board of parole shall continue the parole in effect, modify the conditions of parole if circumstances then shown to exist require such modifications, which circumstances shall be set forth in writing, or revoke the parole and order the return of the offender to a place of confinement designated by the executive director for a period of not more than five years. In computing the period of reincarceration for an offender other than an offender sentenced for a nonviolent felony offense, as defined in section 17-22.5-405 (5), the time between the offender's release on parole and return to custody in Colorado for revocation of such parole shall not be considered to be any part of the term of the sentence. In no event shall any period of reincarceration and sentence actually served exceed the sentence imposed pursuant to section 18-1.3-401, C.R.S. The state board of parole may discharge an offender granted parole under this section at any time during the term of parole upon a determination that the offender has been sufficiently rehabilitated and reintegrated into society and can no longer benefit from parole supervision.

(8) The state board of parole shall consider the parole of a person whose parole is revoked either for a technical violation or based on a self-revocation at least once within one hundred eighty days after the revocation if the person's release date is more than nine months from the date of the person's revocation; except that a person whose parole is revoked based on a technical violation that involved the use of a weapon shall not be considered for parole for one year.

Source: L. 84: Entire article R&RE, p. 521, § 1, effective July 1. L. 85: (3) and (4) amended and (6) and (7) added, p. 648, § 4, effective July 1; (5) added, p. 641, § 10, effective July 1. L. 87: (7) amended, p. 654, § 11, effective July 1. L. 90: (6) amended, p. 924, § 6, effective March 27. L. 92: (6) and (7) amended, p. 2173, § 24, effective June 2. L. 94: (6) amended, p. 2597, § 6, effective June 3. L. 95: (7) amended, p. 877, § 12, effective May 24. L. 2000: (1), (2), (4), and (7) amended, p. 853, § 62, effective May 24. L. 2002: (2), (3), (4), (6), and (7) amended, p. 1502, § 163, effective October 1. L. 2003: (6) amended, p. 812, § 1, effective July 1; (8) added, p. 2676, § 2, effective July 1. L. 2008: (7) amended, p. 1756, § 4, effective July 1.

Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 17-22.5-103 as it existed prior to 1984.

Cross references: (1) For parole revocation proceedings, see §§ 17-2-103 and 17-2-201; for the right to attend parole hearings, see § 17-2-214.

(2) For the legislative declaration contained in the 2002 act amending subsections (2), (3), (4), (6), and (7), see section 1 of chapter 318, Session Laws of Colorado 2002.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 47 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1989–2025 · leading case: People v. Cooper, 27 P.3d 348 (Colo. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

People v. Cooper, 27 P.3d 348 (Colo. 2001). · cites it 12× “On the mittimus, the trial judge marked a box stating, "plus any term of parole authorized by section 17-22.5-303, C.R.S.," but made no other comments regarding parole.”

Gasper v. Gunter, 851 P.2d 912 (Colo. 1993). · cites it 36× “In his petition, Gasper challenged the constitutionality of section 17-22.5-303(7), 8A C.R.S. (1992 Supp.”

Renneke v. Kautzky, 782 P.2d 343 (Colo. 1989). · cites it 10× “The trial court denied the petition, holding that appellant’s continued incarceration was authorized pursuant to section 17-22.5-303(3) and (6), 8A C.R.S.”

Bynum v. Kautzky, 784 P.2d 735 (Colo. 1989). · cites it 12× “142, § 10, § 17-22.5-303, 1985 Colo.Sess.Laws 633, 641, and in 1987, Ch.”

Martin v. People, 27 P.3d 846 (Colo. 2001). · cites it 3× “, § 17-22.5-303, 6 C.R.S. (2000) (providing earlier parole schemes applicable to persons having committed felonies on or after July 1, 1979, but before July 1, 1981; on or after July 1, 1981, but before July 1, 1984; and on or after July 1, 1984, but before July 1, 1985).”

People v. Mendez, 897 P.2d 868 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 3× “Section 17-22.5-303(6), C.R.S. (1994 Cum.”

Spoto v. Colorado State Dep't of Corr., 883 P.2d 11 (Colo. 1994). · cites it 16× “The DOC took the position that subsections (4) and (6) under section 17-22.5-303 were equally applicable.”

Anderson v. Kautzky, 786 P.2d 1082 (Colo. 1990). · cites it 14× “The Department contends that the trial court erred in discharging Anderson from custody and in rejecting the Department’s administrative construction of the provisions of section 17-22.5-303(4), 8A C.R.S. (1986), regarding allocation of good time credits to persons…”

People v. Browning, 809 P.2d 1086 (Colo. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 12× “Section 17-22.5-303(2), C.R.S. (1986 Repl.”

People v. Black, 915 P.2d 1257 (Colo. 1996). · cites it 5× “In contrast, however, mandatory parole is a maximum one-year period and any violation of that mandatory parole can result in a limited reincarceration period that in no event exceeds two years, regardless of the original sentencing term.”

Vaughn v. Gunter, 820 P.2d 659 (Colo. 1991). · cites it 9× “Because Vaughn’s initial conviction and sentence concerned a crime committed before July 1,1985 and his second two convictions and sentences concerned crimes committed on or after July 1, 1985, Vaughn was sentenced under two different schemes which have different approaches to…”

People v. Huerta, 87 P.3d 266 (Colo. Ct. App. 2004). “He asserted that he had been paroled under § 17-22.5-303(6)-(7), C.R.S.2008, which provides that the parole period shall be five years and, upon revocation of parole, the parolee may be returned to DOC for a period of not more than five years.”

Show all 47 citing cases →

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 17-22.5-303(1) — 6 cases

People v. Black, 915 P.2d 1257 (Colo. 1996). “In contrast, however, mandatory parole is a maximum one-year period and any violation of that mandatory parole can result in a limited reincarceration period that in no event exceeds two years, regardless of the original sentencing term.”

People v. Coleman, 844 P.2d 1215 (Colo. Ct. App. 1992).

People v. Sandoval, 809 P.2d 1058 (Colo. Ct. App. 1990).

People v. Tyus, 776 P.2d 1143 (Colo. Ct. App. 1989).

Bynum v. Kautzky, 784 P.2d 735 (Colo. 1989). “142, § 10, § 17-22.5-303, 1985 Colo.Sess.Laws 633, 641, and in 1987, Ch.”

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 17-22.5-303(2) — 11 cases

Bynum v. Kautzky, 784 P.2d 735 (Colo. 1989). “142, § 10, § 17-22.5-303, 1985 Colo.Sess.Laws 633, 641, and in 1987, Ch.”

People v. Browning, 809 P.2d 1086 (Colo. Ct. App. 1990). “Section 17-22.5-303(2), C.R.S. (1986 Repl.”

People v. Leedom, 781 P.2d 173 (Colo. Ct. App. 1989).

People v. Reynolds, 907 P.2d 670 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995).

People v. Grenemyer, 827 P.2d 603 (Colo. Ct. App. 1992).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 17-22.5-303(3) — 3 cases

Renneke v. Kautzky, 782 P.2d 343 (Colo. 1989). “The trial court denied the petition, holding that appellant’s continued incarceration was authorized pursuant to section 17-22.5-303(3) and (6), 8A C.R.S.”

People v. McCreadie, 938 P.2d 528 (Colo. 1997).

People v. Graham, 793 P.2d 600 (Colo. Ct. App. 1989).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 17-22.5-303(4) — 8 cases

Anderson v. Kautzky, 786 P.2d 1082 (Colo. 1990). “The Department contends that the trial court erred in discharging Anderson from custody and in rejecting the Department’s administrative construction of the provisions of section 17-22.5-303(4), 8A C.R.S. (1986), regarding allocation of good time credits to persons…”

Williamson v. Jordan, 797 P.2d 744 (Colo. 1990).

People v. Swepston, 822 P.2d 510 (Colo. Ct. App. 1991).

Spoto v. Colorado State Dep't of Corr., 883 P.2d 11 (Colo. 1994). “The DOC took the position that subsections (4) and (6) under section 17-22.5-303 were equally applicable.”

Vaughn v. Gunter, 820 P.2d 659 (Colo. 1991). “Because Vaughn’s initial conviction and sentence concerned a crime committed before July 1,1985 and his second two convictions and sentences concerned crimes committed on or after July 1, 1985, Vaughn was sentenced under two different schemes which have different approaches to…”

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 17-22.5-303(6) — 16 cases

People v. Mendez, 897 P.2d 868 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995). “Section 17-22.5-303(6), C.R.S. (1994 Cum.”

People v. Cooper, 27 P.3d 348 (Colo. 2001). “On the mittimus, the trial judge marked a box stating, "plus any term of parole authorized by section 17-22.5-303, C.R.S.," but made no other comments regarding parole.”

Martin v. People, 27 P.3d 846 (Colo. 2001). “, § 17-22.5-303, 6 C.R.S. (2000) (providing earlier parole schemes applicable to persons having committed felonies on or after July 1, 1979, but before July 1, 1981; on or after July 1, 1981, but before July 1, 1984; and on or after July 1, 1984, but before July 1, 1985).”

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 17-22.5-303(7) — 6 cases

Gasper v. Gunter, 851 P.2d 912 (Colo. 1993). “In his petition, Gasper challenged the constitutionality of section 17-22.5-303(7), 8A C.R.S. (1992 Supp.”

Bullard v. Dep't of Corr., 949 P.2d 999 (Colo. 1997).

People v. Gallegos, 975 P.2d 1135 (Colo. Ct. App. 1999).

People v. Browning, 809 P.2d 1086 (Colo. Ct. App. 1990). “Section 17-22.5-303(2), C.R.S. (1986 Repl.”

People v. Gonzales, 973 P.2d 732 (Colo. Ct. App. 1999).

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.