Opinion · Supreme Court of Colorado

People v. DISTRICT COURT, ETC.

559 P.2d 235

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of Colorado
Jurisdiction
Colorado
Date
1977-01-31
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • phrase "prior conviction" as used in habitual criminal statute includes judgments of convictions that are on appeal

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed People v. DISTRICT COURT, ETC.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
4 opinions
PEOPLE v. DIST. CT.,192 Colo. 375(1977)
(559 P.2d 235)
The People of the State of Colorado v. The District Court in and for the
Tenth Judicial District, State of Colorado, and the Honorable Thomas F.
Phelps, one of the District Judges in and for the Tenth Judicial District,
State of Colorado and Dennis Joseph Montoya
No. 27406
Supreme Court of Colorado.
Decided January 31, 1977.
Original proceeding by district attorney seeking reversal of district court's dismissal of an habitual criminal charge against defendant. Rule to show cause issued.Rule Made Absolute
1.CRIMINAL LAW—Habitual Criminal — Guilty Verdict — Sentence — PriorConviction — Later Felony — Challenge — Reversal. A guilty verdict that has withstood a motion for new trial and for which a defendant has been sentenced can be used as a prior conviction for purposes of bringing a habitual criminal charge against a defendant in conjunction with a later felony charge; however, a convicted defendant may subsequently challenge an enhanced sentence resulting from the habitual criminal charge, if, in fact a prior conviction is reversed.
2.Habitual Criminal — Statute. Under section16-13-101, C.R.S. 1973, every person convicted of a felony who has been previously convicted of two other felonies will be adjudged an habitual criminal.
3.Habitual Criminal Statute — Purpose. The purpose of the habitual criminal statute, section16-13-101, C.R.S. 1973, is to punish repeat offenders.Page 376
Original Proceeding
J. E. Losavio, Jr., District Attorney, James A. Lowe, Deputy, for petitioner.

Rollie R. Rogers, State Public Defender, James F. Dumas, Jr., Chief Deputy, Terri L. Brake, Deputy, James Dostal, Deputy, for respondents.
En Banc.
MR. JUSTICE HODGES delivered the opinion of the Court.
The district attorney brings this original proceeding to challenge the district court's dismissal of an habitual criminal charge against Dennis Joseph Montoya. The respondent district court predicated its dismissal upon its determination that the prior conviction alleged in the charge was not yet final because an appeal was pending. We issued a rule to show cause why this habitual criminal charge should not be reinstated and we now make the rule absolute.[1-3]The sole issue here is whether a guilty verdict that has withstood a motion for new trial and for which a defendant has been sentenced can be used as a prior conviction for purposes of bringing an habitual criminal charge against a defendant in conjunction with a later felony charge.

InPeople v. District Court,191 Colo. 558,554 P.2d 1105(1976), we held that an earlier judgment of conviction which is on appeal is a "previous conviction" and can be considered as an aggravating factor by a jury in the determination of whether a defendant is to be sentenced to death. The rationale we used in that case is equally applicable to the sentencing procedure under the habitual criminal act where prior convictions are also considered as aggravating factors for increased punishment.See People v.Goff,187 Colo. 57,530 P.2d 512(1974), wherein we held that a previous conviction may be used for impeachment purposes when it has withstood a motion for new trial and a sentence has been imposed.

Our resolution of this issue does not foreclose a convicted defendant from later challenging the enhanced sentence resulting from the habitual criminal charge if, in fact, a prior conviction is reversed.

Also, it is self-evident that the legislature intended the term "prior conviction" to include those judgments of conviction that are on appeal. Section16-13-101, C.R.S. 1973, states that every person convicted of aPage 377felony who has been previously convicted of two other felonies shall be adjudged an habitual criminal. If prior convictions on appeal were not included, many recent felony convictions might be effectively exempted from the operation of the statute. This would be clearly inconsistent with the obvious purpose of the statute, which is to punish repeat offenders.

Rule made absolute.