Burns v. District Court: Sentencing Enters a New Era
| Publication year | 1984 |
| Pages | 443 |
| Citation | Vol. 13 No. 3 Pg. 443 |
1984, March, Pg. 443. Burns v. District Court: Sentencing Enters a New Era
On August 15, 1982, Clarence Burns shot his wife five times at close range. Originally charged with first-degree murder, Burns pled guilty to second-degree murder, and the People agreed not to seek a sentence in excess often years. After a lengthy hearing, the sentencing court found probation was inappropriate. Burns was sentenced to four years with the Department of Corrections, plus one year of parole, which is the lowest possible extraordinarily mitigated sentence.(fn1)
On June 22, 1983, the district judge suspended the four-year sentence and sentenced Burns instead to two years in the county jail on a work release program. The public outcry over this short sentence was unprecedented. Seven days later, the judge revoked suspension of the four-year sentence. However, he did not increase the original sentence because he believed that the double jeopardy clauses of the U.S. and Colorado Constitutions prohibited an alteration of the four-year sentence.
Both the defendant and the People commenced original proceedings before the Colorado Supreme Court.(fn2) The People argued that the four-year sentence was so short as to be a gross abuse of discretion and requested that the sentence be increased. On the other hand, the defendant argued that there was no appellate remedy of which the People could avail themselves and that the sentence was supported by the record. The defendant further claimed that double jeopardy prevented an increase in the sentence. This article is a critique by a public defender of the Supreme Court holding on the sentencing issues in Burns, which was announced on December 5, 1983.
The Supreme Court first held that it had jurisdiction pursuant to C.A.R. 21 to entertain the People's petition. The court noted that the issue was of sufficient public importance to warrant consideration and, further, that a writ of prohibition would lie to correct an illegal sentence. The court then held that the original sentence was illegal because the trial court had no authority to impose a suspended sentence if the defendant was not eligible for probation. Finally, the court ruled that neither state nor federal double jeopardy principles prevented an increased sentence if the original sentence was illegal. The Rule was made absolute and the case was remanded for resentencing.
The key to the Burns decision is the Supreme Court's holding that the sentence imposed by the trial court at the first sentencing hearing was illegal for two reasons. First, the court ruled it would only have jurisdiction to hear the People's petition if the sentence was illegal. There is no statutory authority for...
To continue reading
Request your trial