The general assembly hereby finds that the
majority of persons who commit sex offenses, if incarcerated or supervised without treatment,
will continue to present a danger to the public when released from incarceration and supervision.
The general assembly also finds that keeping all sex offenders in lifetime incarceration imposes
an unacceptably high cost in both state dollars and loss of human potential. The general
assembly further finds that some sex offenders respond well to treatment and can function as
safe, responsible, and contributing members of society, so long as they receive treatment and
supervision. The general assembly therefore declares that a program under which sex offenders
may receive treatment and supervision for the rest of their lives, if necessary, is necessary for the
safety, health, and welfare of the state.
Source: L. 2002: Entire article added with relocations, p. 1434, § 2, effective October 1.
Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 16-13-801 as it existed prior to 2002.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
61
cases (
11 in the last 5 years), 2002–2026 · leading case:
Peo v. Houser, 2020 COA 128 (Colo. Ct. App. 2020).
Peo v. Houser, 2020 COA 128 (Colo. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 2× “§ 18-1.3-1001, C.R.S. 2019. But in this case, there has never been an adjudication that Houser intended to patronize a child prostitute.”
People v. Tillery, 231 P.3d 36 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 4× “Tillery also appeals the trial court's concurrent sentences of sixty years to life under the Colorado Sex Offender Lifetime Supervision Act, § 18-1.3-1001, C.R.S.2009, on each of the pattern and POT counts.”
Ryals v. City of Englewood, 2016 CO 8 (Colo. 2016).
· cites it 8× “5-403(6), -403(8); § 18-1.3-1001, C.R.S. (2015)). For the district court, Englewoodâs ordinance âpose[s] a potentially substantial obstruction to .”
Vensor v. People, 151 P.3d 1274 (Colo. 2007).
· cites it 2× “§ 18-1.3-1001, C.R.S. (2006) (emphasis added).”
People v. Jenkins, 305 P.3d 420 (Colo. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “§ 18-1.3-1001, C.R.S.2012 ("'The general assembly .”
v. Knobbe, 2020 COA 7 (Colo. Ct. App. 2020).
“If, on retrial, the court again instructs the jury on this charge, it must instruct the jury that, to convict of this charge, the jury has to find that the kidnapping was “accomplished by” the use of a deadly weapon. VI. Sex Offender Lifetime Supervision Act ¶ 63 Knobbe was…”
People v. Simon, 219 P.3d 789 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “2, §§ 18-1.3-1001 to-1012, 2002 Colo. Sess. Laws 1434 -44).”
Peo v. Martinez, 2020 COA 141 (Colo. Ct. App. 2020).
“§§ 18-1.3-1001 to -1012, C.R.S. 2019. 8 II.”
People v. Collier, 151 P.3d 668 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006).
“Equal Protection Defendant further contends the Colorado Sex Offender Lifetime Supervision Act, § 18-1.3-1001, et seq., C.R.S.2006, violates his right to equal protection of the law because it allows judges to impose different sentences for substantially similar crimes.”
People v. Loveall, 231 P.3d 408 (Colo. 2010).
“§ 18-1.3-1001, et seq., C.R.S. (2009). We hold that this attack also runs afoul of section 16-5-402.”
People v. Firth, 205 P.3d 445 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008).
“The court therefore revoked probation and sentenced defendant to an indeterminate prison term of six years to life, pursuant to the Colorado Sex Offender Lifetime Supervision Act (the Act), §§ 18-1.3-1001 to -1012, C.R.S.2007. Defendant subsequently filed a petition for…”
People v. Strean, 74 P.3d 387 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “In the Act's legislative declaration, § 18-1.3-1001, C.R.S.2002, the General Assembly stated: The general assembly hereby finds that the majority of persons who commit sex offenses, if incarcerated or supervised without treatment, will continue to present a danger to the public…”
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.