(1) Notwithstanding the fact that no review of a
conviction of crime was sought by appeal within the time prescribed therefor, or that a judgment
of conviction was affirmed upon appeal, every person convicted of a crime is entitled as a matter
of right to make applications for postconviction review. Except as otherwise required by
subsection (1.5) of this section, an application for postconviction review must, in good faith,
allege one or more of the following grounds to justify a hearing thereon:
(a) That the conviction was obtained or sentence imposed in violation of the constitution
or laws of the United States or the constitution or laws of this state;
(b) That the applicant was convicted under a statute that is in violation of the
constitution of the United States or the constitution of this state, or that the conduct for which the
applicant was prosecuted is constitutionally protected;
(c) That the court rendering judgment was without jurisdiction over the person of the
applicant or the subject matter;
(d) That the sentence imposed exceeded the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise
not in accordance with the sentence authorized by law;
(e) That there exists evidence of material facts, not theretofore presented and heard,
which, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been known to or learned of by
the defendant or his attorney prior to the submission of the issues to the court or jury, and which
requires vacation of the conviction or sentence in the interest of justice;
(f) (I) That there has been significant change in the law, applied to the applicant's
conviction or sentence, allowing in the interests of justice retroactive application of the changed
legal standard.
(II) The ground set forth in this paragraph (f) may not be asserted if, prior to filing for
relief pursuant to this paragraph (f), a person has not sought appeal of a conviction within the
time prescribed therefor or if a judgment of conviction has been affirmed upon appeal.
(g) Any grounds otherwise properly the basis for collateral attack upon a criminal
judgment; or
(h) That the sentence imposed has been fully served or that there has been unlawful
revocation of parole, probation, or conditional release.
(1.5) An application for postconviction review in a class 1 felony case where a sentence
of death has been imposed shall be limited to claims of newly discovered evidence and
ineffective assistance of counsel; except that, for any sentence of death imposed on or after the
date upon which the Colorado supreme court adopts rules implementing the unitary system of
review established by part 2 of article 12 of title 16, C.R.S., any application for postconviction
review in such case shall be governed by the provisions of part 2 of article 12 of title 16, C.R.S.
(2) (a) Except as otherwise required by paragraph (b) of this subsection (2), procedures
to be followed in implementation of the right to postconviction remedy shall be as prescribed by
rule of the supreme court of the state of Colorado.
(b) In any class 1 felony case where a sentence of death has been imposed, the district
court shall expeditiously consider an application for postconviction remedy. It is the general
assembly's intent that the district court give priority to cases in which a sentence of death has
been imposed.
(3) (a) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection (3), an appeal of
any order by the district court granting or denying postconviction relief in a case in which a
sentence of death has been imposed shall be to the Colorado supreme court as provided by
section 13-4-102 (1)(h), C.R.S. The procedures to be followed in the implementation of such
review shall be in accordance with any rules adopted by the Colorado supreme court in response
to the legislative intent expressed in section 16-12-101.5 (1), C.R.S.
(b) In any class 1 felony case in which a sentence of death is imposed on or after the date
upon which the Colorado supreme court adopts rules implementing the unitary system of review
established under part 2 of article 12 of title 16, C.R.S., the procedures for appealing any order
by the district court granting or denying postconviction relief and review by the Colorado
supreme court of such order shall be governed by the provisions of part 2 of article 12 of title 16,
C.R.S., and by such rules adopted by the supreme court.
Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 402, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 40-1-510. L. 73: p. 533, § 2. L. 75:
(1)(f) amended, p. 211, § 28, effective July 16. L. 94: IP(1) and (2) amended and (1.5) and (3)
added, p. 1474, § 2, effective July 1. L. 97: (1.5) and (3) amended, p. 1583, § 5, effective June 4.
Cross references: For limitations on collateral attacks, see § 16-5-402; for similar
provisions concerning postconviction remedies, see Crim. P. 35.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
96
cases (
24 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · leading case:
People v. Stellabotte, 2018 CO 66 (Colo. 2018).
People v. Stellabotte, 2018 CO 66 (Colo. 2018).
· cites it 125× “(2017),5 5 Section 18-1-103(2) provides as follows: Except as otherwise provided by section 18-1-410, the provisions of this code do not apply to or govern the construction of, prosecution for, and punishment for any offense committed prior to July 1, 1972, or the construction…”
People v. Cali, 2020 CO 20 (Colo. 2020).
· cites it 20× “¶20 Section 18-1-410 governs the postconviction remedies available to criminal defendants.”
Kazadi v. People, 291 P.3d 16 (Colo. 2012).
· cites it 38× “The issue for which we granted certiorari is: Whether a criminal defendant has the right to apply for postconviction review of a deferred sentence pursuant to section 18-1-410, C.R.S. (2010), and Crim.”
People v. Boyd, 2015 COA 109 (Colo. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 51× “¶57       The new code also added the statute that eventually became section 18-1-410(1)(f), C.R.S. 2014. The original statute stated in 1971 that defendants, in postconviction motions, could ask courts to grant them relief if âthere has been significant change in the…”
People v. Wiedemer, 852 P.2d 424 (Colo. 1993).
· cites it 12× “35(c) challenges from the scope of section 16-5-402 is necessary to harmonize that statute and section 18-1-410, 8B C.R.S. (1986);' (3) a Crim.”
People v. Kazadi, 284 P.3d 70 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 28× “Further, the three cases to similar effect cited by the majority are also distinguishable, because they addressed deferred judgments in different contexts. Significantly, neither Carbgjal nor the court of appeals decisions analyzed the specific language of Crim.”
People v. Stellabotte, 2016 COA 106 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 16× “4 Further, because the three cases dealt with amendatory statutes that applied only to offenses committed on or after the effective date, we do not view Riley, McCoy, and Macias as inconsistent with Russell and Boyd.”
. People v. Trujillo, 2018 COA 12 (Colo. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 16× “§ 18-1-410(1)(f)(I), C.R.S. 2017; see also People v.”
v. Melnick, 2019 COA 28 (Colo. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 3× “However, 4 the parole statute explicitly provides for judicial review of parole revocation pursuant to section 18-1-410(1)(h), C.R.S. 2018. § 17-2- 201(4)(b).”
People v. Heredia, 122 P.3d 1041 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 8× “Heredia argues that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the prosecution is not a "person convicted of a crime," within the meaning of § 18-1-410, C.R.S.2004. Although I agree with Heredia's reading of the statute, I disagree with his conclusion.”
Peo v. Gregory, 2020 COA 162 (Colo. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 28× “” Under the prosecution’s reasoning, Thomas, Stellabotte, and section 18-1-410(1)(f) apply only to statutes that reduce the sentencing range for an offense; they do not apply when the General Assembly creates a new offense.”
People v. Thomas, 867 P.2d 880 (Colo. 1994).
· cites it 13× “The People also suggest that the provisions of section 16-5-402(3) might be harmonized with the provisions of section 18-1-410. However, in People v. Heitzman, 852 P.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-410(1) — 14 cases
People v. Cali, 2020 CO 20 (Colo. 2020).
“¶20 Section 18-1-410 governs the postconviction remedies available to criminal defendants.”
People v. Kazadi, 284 P.3d 70 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011).
“Further, the three cases to similar effect cited by the majority are also distinguishable, because they addressed deferred judgments in different contexts. Significantly, neither Carbgjal nor the court of appeals decisions analyzed the specific language of Crim.”
People v. Heredia, 122 P.3d 1041 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005).
“Heredia argues that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the prosecution is not a "person convicted of a crime," within the meaning of § 18-1-410, C.R.S.2004. Although I agree with Heredia's reading of the statute, I disagree with his conclusion.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-410(1)(a) — 3 cases
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-410(1)(b) — 1 case
Kazadi v. People, 291 P.3d 16 (Colo. 2012).
“The issue for which we granted certiorari is: Whether a criminal defendant has the right to apply for postconviction review of a deferred sentence pursuant to section 18-1-410, C.R.S. (2010), and Crim.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-410(1)(d) — 2 cases
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-410(1)(f) — 21 cases
People v. Stellabotte, 2018 CO 66 (Colo. 2018).
“(2017),5 5 Section 18-1-103(2) provides as follows: Except as otherwise provided by section 18-1-410, the provisions of this code do not apply to or govern the construction of, prosecution for, and punishment for any offense committed prior to July 1, 1972, or the construction…”
People v. Cali, 2020 CO 20 (Colo. 2020).
“¶20 Section 18-1-410 governs the postconviction remedies available to criminal defendants.”
People v. Boyd, 2015 COA 109 (Colo. Ct. App. 2015).
“¶57       The new code also added the statute that eventually became section 18-1-410(1)(f), C.R.S. 2014. The original statute stated in 1971 that defendants, in postconviction motions, could ask courts to grant them relief if âthere has been significant change in the…”
Peo v. Gregory, 2020 COA 162 (Colo. Ct. App. 2020).
“” Under the prosecution’s reasoning, Thomas, Stellabotte, and section 18-1-410(1)(f) apply only to statutes that reduce the sentencing range for an offense; they do not apply when the General Assembly creates a new offense.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-410(1)(f)(D) — 1 case
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-410(1)(f)(I) — 12 cases
People v. Stellabotte, 2018 CO 66 (Colo. 2018).
“(2017),5 5 Section 18-1-103(2) provides as follows: Except as otherwise provided by section 18-1-410, the provisions of this code do not apply to or govern the construction of, prosecution for, and punishment for any offense committed prior to July 1, 1972, or the construction…”
. People v. Trujillo, 2018 COA 12 (Colo. Ct. App. 2018).
“§ 18-1-410(1)(f)(I), C.R.S. 2017; see also People v.”
v. Baker, 2019 COA 165 (Colo. Ct. App. 2019).
Peo v. Gregory, 2020 COA 162 (Colo. Ct. App. 2020).
“” Under the prosecution’s reasoning, Thomas, Stellabotte, and section 18-1-410(1)(f) apply only to statutes that reduce the sentencing range for an offense; they do not apply when the General Assembly creates a new offense.”
People v. Stellabotte, 2016 COA 106 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016).
“4 Further, because the three cases dealt with amendatory statutes that applied only to offenses committed on or after the effective date, we do not view Riley, McCoy, and Macias as inconsistent with Russell and Boyd.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-410(1)(f)(II) — 9 cases
People v. Stellabotte, 2018 CO 66 (Colo. 2018).
“(2017),5 5 Section 18-1-103(2) provides as follows: Except as otherwise provided by section 18-1-410, the provisions of this code do not apply to or govern the construction of, prosecution for, and punishment for any offense committed prior to July 1, 1972, or the construction…”
Peo v. Gregory, 2020 COA 162 (Colo. Ct. App. 2020).
“” Under the prosecution’s reasoning, Thomas, Stellabotte, and section 18-1-410(1)(f) apply only to statutes that reduce the sentencing range for an offense; they do not apply when the General Assembly creates a new offense.”
People v. Kazadi, 284 P.3d 70 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011).
“Further, the three cases to similar effect cited by the majority are also distinguishable, because they addressed deferred judgments in different contexts. Significantly, neither Carbgjal nor the court of appeals decisions analyzed the specific language of Crim.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-410(1)(g) — 2 cases
People v. Cali, 2020 CO 20 (Colo. 2020).
“¶20 Section 18-1-410 governs the postconviction remedies available to criminal defendants.”
v. Cali, 2018 COA 61 (Colo. Ct. App. 2018).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-410(1)(h) — 5 cases
v. Melnick, 2019 COA 28 (Colo. Ct. App. 2019).
“However, 4 the parole statute explicitly provides for judicial review of parole revocation pursuant to section 18-1-410(1)(h), C.R.S. 2018. § 17-2- 201(4)(b).”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-410(10) — 1 case
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-410(2) — 1 case
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-410(2)(a) — 2 cases
Kazadi v. People, 291 P.3d 16 (Colo. 2012).
“The issue for which we granted certiorari is: Whether a criminal defendant has the right to apply for postconviction review of a deferred sentence pursuant to section 18-1-410, C.R.S. (2010), and Crim.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-410(3) — 1 case
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-410(f) — 3 cases
People v. Thomas, 867 P.2d 880 (Colo. 1994).
“The People also suggest that the provisions of section 16-5-402(3) might be harmonized with the provisions of section 18-1-410. However, in People v. Heitzman, 852 P.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-410(l)(f) — 2 cases
People v. Boyd, 2015 COA 109 (Colo. Ct. App. 2015).
“¶57       The new code also added the statute that eventually became section 18-1-410(1)(f), C.R.S. 2014. The original statute stated in 1971 that defendants, in postconviction motions, could ask courts to grant them relief if âthere has been significant change in the…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-410(l)(f)(I) — 2 cases
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-410(l)(h) — 1 case
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.