Summaries of Published Opinions, 0320 COBJ, Vol. 49, No. 3 Pg. 95

Position:Vol. 49, 3 [Page 95]
 
FREE EXCERPT

49 Colo.Law. 95

Summaries of Published Opinions

Vol. 49, No. 3 [Page 95]

Colorado Lawyer

March, 2020

COLORADO SUPREME COURT

January 13, 2020

2020 CO 1. No. 19SA44. Graham v. Executive Director of Colorado Department of Corrections. Habeas Corpus—Parole Revocation— Statutory Interpretation.

In this habeas corpus appeal, the Supreme Court considered whether subsection (11)(b) of the parole revocation statute, CRS § 17-2-103, as it existed between August 9, 2017 and August 7, 2018, authorizes a parolee’s confinement for the remainder of his parole period. The Court concluded that it does not. Rather, under subsection (11)(b), the parole board is only authorized to order a parolee confined for up to 90 days. Because the parolee in this case has been confined well beyond the 90 days authorized, the Court held that the district court erred in denying his habeas petition. Therefore, the Court reversed the district court’s order and remanded the case to the district court with directions to grant the writ of habeas corpus, make the writ permanent, and order that the parolee be immediately released to parole.

2020 CO 2. No. 18SC436. In re Parental Responsibilities Concerning W.C. Family Law—Parenting Responsibilities—Appeals— Continuing Trial Court Jurisdiction.

Absent a specific statute or rule stating otherwise, trial courts are divested of jurisdiction over issues that are material to a perfected appeal. In this case, the Supreme Court applied this rule to father’s motions to modify parenting responsibility orders and first concluded that CRS §§ 14-10-129(1)(a)(I) and -131(2) do not specifically grant trial courts jurisdiction to modify parenting responsibility orders while an appeal of the orders is pending. Next, the Court concluded that father’s motions to modify were material to his appeal. Thus, the Court held that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to rule on father’s motions to modify while those orders were on appeal. Accordingly, the Court disapproved of the Court of Appeals’ order.

2020 CO 3. No. 18SC482. Martinez v. People.

Statutory Interpretation—Probation Revocation—DUI Sentencing.

In this opinion, the Supreme Court reviewed a district court’s judgment affirming a county court’s interpretation and application of CRS § 42-4-1307. The Court concluded that the sentence imposed by the county court when it revoked defendant’s probation for a second time...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP