(1) (a) The judicial department shall establish an intensive supervision probation program for sex offenders sentenced to probation pursuant to this part 10. In addition, the court shall require a person, as a condition of probation, to participate in the intensive supervision probation program established pursuant to this section if the person is convicted of one of the following offenses and sentenced to probation:
(I) Indecent exposure, as described in section 18-7-302 (4);
(II) Criminal attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation to commit any of the offenses specified in section 18-1.3-1003 (5)(a), which attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation would constitute a class 5 felony;
(III) Any of the offenses specified in section 16-22-102 (9)(j), (9)(k), (9)(l), (9)(n), (9)(o), (9)(p), (9)(q), (9)(r), (9)(s), or (9)(dd);
(IV) Any felony offense that involves unlawful sexual behavior or any felony offense with an underlying factual basis, as determined by the court, resulting in a conviction or plea of guilty or nolo contendere on or after July 1, 2001;
(V) Sexual assault in the third degree, in violation of section 18-3-404 (2), as it existed prior to July 1, 2000.
(b) The judicial department may establish the intensive supervision probation program in any judicial district or combination of judicial districts.
(1.5) In addition to the persons specified in subsection (1) of this section, the court may require any person convicted of felony failure to register as a sex offender, as described in section 18-3-412.5, and sentenced to probation to participate, as a condition of probation and until further order of the court, in the intensive supervision probation program established pursuant to this section.
(2) The judicial department shall require that sex offenders and any other persons participating in the intensive supervision probation program created pursuant to this section receive the highest level of supervision that is provided to probationers. The intensive supervision probation program may include but not be limited to severely restricted activities, daily contact between the sex offender or other person and the probation officer, monitored curfew, home visitation, employment visitation and monitoring, drug and alcohol screening, treatment referrals and monitoring, including physiological monitoring, and payment of restitution. In addition, the intensive supervision probation program shall be designed to minimize the risk to the public to the greatest extent possible.
(3) The judicial department shall establish and enforce standards and criteria for administration of the intensive supervision probation program created pursuant to this section.
(4) For the purposes of this section, "convicted" means having entered a plea of guilty, including a plea of guilty entered pursuant to a deferred sentence under section 18-1.3-102, or a plea of no contest, accepted by the court, or having received a verdict of guilty by a judge or jury.
Source: L. 2002: (1.5) amended, p. 1184, § 17, effective July 1; entire article added with relocations, p. 1440, § 2, effective October 1. L. 2011: (1.5) amended, (HB 11-1278), ch. 224, p. 965, § 9, effective May 27. L. 2012: (1)(a)(III) amended, (HB 12-1310), ch. 268, p. 1402, § 26, effective June 7. L. 2019: (1)(a)(III) amended, (HB 19-1250), ch. 287, p. 2664, § 5, effective July 1.
Editor's note: (1) This section is similar to former § 16-13-807 as it existed prior to 2002.
(2) Subsection (1.5) was numbered as § 16-13-807 (1.5) in SB 02-010 (see L. 2002, p. 1184). That provision was harmonized with and relocated to subsection (1.5) of this section as it appears in HB 02-1046.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
15
cases (
6 in the last 5 years), 2004–2025 · leading case:
People v. Jenkins, 2013 COA 76, 305 P.3d 420.
People v. Jenkins, 2013 COA 76, 305 P.3d 420.
· cites it 5× “124 Our conclusion is buttressed by language found in section 18-1.3-1007(1)(a), C.R.S.2012: The judicial department shall establish an intensive supervision probation program for sex offenders sentenced to probation pursuant to this part 10.”
Vensor v. People, 151 P.3d 1274 (Colo. 2007).
· cites it 3× “Unless a sex offender is sentenced to probation as permitted by the Act, see section 18-1.3-1007, C.R.S. (2006), it requires that he be sentenced to the custody of the department of corrections for an indeterminate term of at least the minimum of the presumptive range specified…”
People v. Valenzuela, 98 P.3d 951 (Colo. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 13× “Section 18-1.3-1007, C.R.S.2003; see § 18-1.”
People v. Sanders, 220 P.3d 1020 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 4× “Section 18-1.3-1007(1.5) requires that persons convicted of a felony for failing to register as a sex offender "participate, as a condition of probation .”
People v. Trujillo, 261 P.3d 485 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 2× “See § 18-1.3-1007(2), C.R.S.2010 (requiring that sex offenders receive the highest level of supervision that is provided to probationers).”
People v. Montgomery, 2014 COA 166, 342 P.3d 593.
· cites it 2× “2014 (SOLSA's parole procedures and conditions); §§ 18-1.3-1007 to -1008, C.R.8.2014 (SOL-SA's probation program).”
v. Ehlebracht, 2020 COA 132, 480 P.3d 727.
“§§ 18-1.3-1007, 18-1.3-1008(1), C.R.S. 2019.”
People v. Roberson, 2016 CO 36, 377 P.3d 1039.
“3d at 1051-52 , With regard to the nature and extent of self-inerimination permissibly required as a condition of probation, it is also far from clear that the legislative requirement to "participate" in sex offender treatment contemplates mandatory self-inerimination, see §§…”
v. Landis, 2021 COA 92.
· cites it 3× “See Manaois, ¶ 46 (pointing out that a sentence to SOISP applies to an offender who commits a sex offense or a sex-related offense) (citing § 18-1.3-1007(1)(a)). As the United States Supreme Court held in United States v.”
In re The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado v. Patrick S. KEEN, 488 P.3d 1127 (Colo. 2021).
· cites it 4× “For example, in section 18-1.3-1007 (1) (a) , after requiring the establishment of SOISP for persons convicted of a sex offense and sentenced to probation, the legislature pronounced that, " [i] n addition, the court shall require a person, as a condition of probation, to…”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-1007(1)(A)(V): 1 case
People v. Valenzuela, 98 P.3d 951 (Colo. Ct. App. 2004).
“Section 18-1.3-1007, C.R.S.2003; see § 18-1.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-1007(1)(a): 3 cases
People v. Jenkins, 2013 COA 76, 305 P.3d 420.
“124 Our conclusion is buttressed by language found in section 18-1.3-1007(1)(a), C.R.S.2012: The judicial department shall establish an intensive supervision probation program for sex offenders sentenced to probation pursuant to this part 10.”
v. Landis, 2021 COA 92.
“See Manaois, ¶ 46 (pointing out that a sentence to SOISP applies to an offender who commits a sex offense or a sex-related offense) (citing § 18-1.3-1007(1)(a)). As the United States Supreme Court held in United States v.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-1007(1)(a)(III): 1 case
Peo v. Hall, No. 23CA1906 (Colo. Ct. App. Dec. 19, 2024).
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-1007(1)(a)(V): 1 case
People v. Valenzuela, 98 P.3d 951 (Colo. Ct. App. 2004).
“Section 18-1.3-1007, C.R.S.2003; see § 18-1.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-1007(2): 5 cases
People v. Trujillo, 261 P.3d 485 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010).
“See § 18-1.3-1007(2), C.R.S.2010 (requiring that sex offenders receive the highest level of supervision that is provided to probationers).”
People v. Valenzuela, 98 P.3d 951 (Colo. Ct. App. 2004).
“Section 18-1.3-1007, C.R.S.2003; see § 18-1.”
People v. Roberson, 2016 CO 36, 377 P.3d 1039.
“3d at 1051-52 , With regard to the nature and extent of self-inerimination permissibly required as a condition of probation, it is also far from clear that the legislative requirement to "participate" in sex offender treatment contemplates mandatory self-inerimination, see §§…”
v. Landis, 2021 COA 92.
“See Manaois, ¶ 46 (pointing out that a sentence to SOISP applies to an offender who commits a sex offense or a sex-related offense) (citing § 18-1.3-1007(1)(a)). As the United States Supreme Court held in United States v.”
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.