(1) When a sentence is imposed upon any person following a conviction of any felony, other than a class 1 felony in which a death sentence is automatically reviewed pursuant to section 18-1.3-1201 (6) for an offense charged prior to July 1, 2020, or pursuant to section 18-1.3-1302 (6) for an offense charged prior to July 1, 2020, or pursuant to section 18-1.4-102 (6), the person convicted shall have the right to one appellate review of the propriety of the sentence, having regard to the nature of the offense, the character of the offender, and the public interest, and the manner in which the sentence was imposed, including the sufficiency and accuracy of the information on which it was based; except that, if the sentence is within a range agreed upon by the parties pursuant to a plea agreement, the defendant shall not have the right of appellate review of the propriety of the sentence. The procedures employed in the review shall be provided by supreme court rule.
(2) No appellate court shall review any sentence which is imposed unless, within forty- nine days from the date of the imposition of sentence, a written notice is filed in the trial court to the effect that review of the sentence will be sought; said notice must state the grounds upon which it is based. (2.1) and (2.2) Repealed.
(3) The reviewing court shall have power to affirm the sentence under review, substitute for the sentence under review any penalty that was open to the sentencing court other than granting probation or other conditional release, or remand the case for any further proceedings that could have been conducted prior to the imposition of the sentence under review, and for resentencing on the basis of such further proceedings. No sentence in excess of the one originally imposed shall be given unless matters of aggravation in addition to those known to the court at the time of the original sentence are brought to the attention of the court during the hearing conducted under this section. If the court imposes a sentence in excess of the one first given, it shall specifically identify the additional aggravating facts considered by it in imposing the increased sentence.
Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 401, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 40-1-509. L. 76: (2) R&RE, p. 549, § 8, effective July 1. L. 79: (2.1) repealed and (2.2) R&RE, pp. 670, 672, §§ 17, 24, effective July 1; (1) amended, p. 675, § 2, effective August 1. L. 81: (2.2) repealed, p. 969, § 2, effective July 1. L. 91, 2nd Ex. Sess.: (1) amended, p. 14, § 2, effective September 20; (1) amended, p. 22, § 2, effective October 11. L. 93: (2) amended, p. 1460, § 4, effective June 6. L. 99: (1) amended, p. 799, § 21, effective July 1. L. 2002: (1) amended, p. 1510, § 179, effective October 1. L. 2002, 3rd Ex. Sess.: (1) amended, pp. 33, 34, §§ 29, 30, effective July 12. L. 2012: (2) amended, (SB 12-175), ch. 208, p. 862, § 102, effective July 1. L. 2020: (1) amended, (SB 20-100), ch. 61, p. 208, § 8, effective March 23.
Cross references: (1) For the supreme court rule concerning appellate review of felony sentences, see rule C.A.R. 4(c).
(2) For the legislative declaration contained in the 2002 act amending subsection (1), see section 1 of chapter 318, Session Laws of Colorado 2002. For the legislative declaration contained in the 2002 act amending subsection (1), see section 16 of chapter 1 of the supplement to the Session Laws of Colorado 2002, Third Extraordinary Session.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
134
cases (
26 in the last 5 years), 1975–2026 · leading case:
v. People, 2020 CO 58 (Colo. 2020).
v. People, 2020 CO 58 (Colo. 2020).
· cites it 60× “¶12 Section 18-1-409, “Appellate review of sentence for a felony,” provides in subsection (1): When a sentence is imposed upon any person following a conviction of any felony, other than a class 1 felony in which a death sentence is automatically reviewed .”
Juhl v. People, 172 P.3d 896 (Colo. 2007).
· cites it 22× “One can contrast section 18-1-408(3) with section 18-1-409, C.R.S. (2007), also within part 4, which grants the right of appellate review for felony sentences.”
People v. Johnson, 2015 CO 70 (Colo. 2015).
· cites it 29× “Johnson appealed a second time, arguing that the increased sentence on the possession of a controlled substance conviction violated section 18-1-409, C.R.S. (2015), and his due process rights.”
People v. Lassek, 122 P.3d 1029 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 6× “Section 18-1-409(1), C.R.S.2004, permits appellate review of “the propriety of the sentence,” except when the sentence imposed is “within a range agreed upon by the parties pursuant to a plea agreement.”
People v. Malacara, 606 P.2d 1300 (Colo. 1980).
· cites it 21× “Section 18-1-409, C.R.S. 1973; C.A.R. 4(c)(1).”
People v. Dobler, 369 P.3d 686 (Colo. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 8× “The People contend defendant is precluded under section 18-1-409(1), C.R.S, 2014, from challenging the propriety of the sentences on appeal.”
Lopez v. People, 113 P.3d 713 (Colo. 2005).
· cites it 4× “See § 18-1-409, C.R.S. (2004). Of perhaps even greater importance, however, the Supreme Court in Blakely accepted and relied on the Washington Supreme Court's interpretation of its own statute, requiring that "`[a] reason offered to justify an exceptional sentence can be…”
People v. Boyd, 2015 COA 109 (Colo. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 23× “Laws 401 -02 (now codified as section 18-1-409, C.R.S. 2014), which is limited to appeals of sentences in felony cases.”
People v. Watkins, 613 P.2d 633 (Colo. 1980).
· cites it 9× “” In recognition of the troublesome problems of sentencing disparity and the need for rationality and fairness in the sentencing process, section 18-1-409, C.R.S. 1973 (1978 Repl.”
People v. Torrez, 316 P.3d 25 (Colo. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 3× “Rather, he asserted that the sentences for the paired counts "must be concurrent to each other." T 91 Second, we have the authority on review to "substitute for the sentence under review any penalty that was open to the sentencing court other than granting probation or other…”
People v. Pendleton, 2015 COA 154 (Colo. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 3× “Although the postconviction court found that defendant's dissatisfaction with her sentence should have alerted counsel that she wished to appeal the sentence, it correctly held that such an appeal was barred by section 18-1-409(1), C.R.S.2015, See People v.”
People v. Phillips, 652 P.2d 575 (Colo. 1982).
· cites it 10× “The statute informs the exercise of discretion by a sentencing judge by specifying the legislative judgment as to the sentencing range for the ordinary case, but takes cognizance of the fact that a greater or lesser sentence may be necessary in the exercise of the court's sound…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-409(1) — 73 cases
v. People, 2020 CO 58 (Colo. 2020).
“¶12 Section 18-1-409, “Appellate review of sentence for a felony,” provides in subsection (1): When a sentence is imposed upon any person following a conviction of any felony, other than a class 1 felony in which a death sentence is automatically reviewed .”
Juhl v. People, 172 P.3d 896 (Colo. 2007).
“One can contrast section 18-1-408(3) with section 18-1-409, C.R.S. (2007), also within part 4, which grants the right of appellate review for felony sentences.”
People v. Lassek, 122 P.3d 1029 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005).
“Section 18-1-409(1), C.R.S.2004, permits appellate review of “the propriety of the sentence,” except when the sentence imposed is “within a range agreed upon by the parties pursuant to a plea agreement.”
People v. Dobler, 369 P.3d 686 (Colo. Ct. App. 2015).
“The People contend defendant is precluded under section 18-1-409(1), C.R.S, 2014, from challenging the propriety of the sentences on appeal.”
People v. Pendleton, 2015 COA 154 (Colo. Ct. App. 2015).
“Although the postconviction court found that defendant's dissatisfaction with her sentence should have alerted counsel that she wished to appeal the sentence, it correctly held that such an appeal was barred by section 18-1-409(1), C.R.S.2015, See People v.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-409(2) — 10 cases
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-409(3) — 11 cases
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-409(8) — 3 cases
People v. Johnson, 2015 CO 70 (Colo. 2015).
“Johnson appealed a second time, arguing that the increased sentence on the possession of a controlled substance conviction violated section 18-1-409, C.R.S. (2015), and his due process rights.”
People v. Torrez, 316 P.3d 25 (Colo. Ct. App. 2013).
“Rather, he asserted that the sentences for the paired counts "must be concurrent to each other." T 91 Second, we have the authority on review to "substitute for the sentence under review any penalty that was open to the sentencing court other than granting probation or other…”
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.