Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

People v. Russell

Court of Appeals of Colorado, First Division

March 13, 2014

The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Brandi Jessica Russell, Defendant-Appellant.

Grand County District Court No. 10CR38 Honorable Mary C. Hoak, Judge

John W. Suthers, Attorney General, Ethan E. Zweig, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Emeson Law, LLC, Brian S. Emeson, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant

Taubman and Lichtenstein, JJ., concur

OPINION

MILLER, JUDGE

OPINION is modified as follows:

Page 7, line 7 currently reads:

defendant to receive postconviction relief if "there has been

Opinion now reads:

defendant to request postconviction relief if "there has been

Page 7, line 11 currently reads:

entitled to the benefits of amendatory legislation that mitigates the

Page 7, line 11 now reads:

entitled to seek the benefits of amendatory legislation that mitigates the

Deleted the following footnote 3 at page 8, line 12:

Though not discussed in the opinion, the amending statute's effective date clause provided, "[t]his act shall take effect July 1, 1975." Ch. 115, § 10, 1975 Colo. Sess. Laws 437.

Inserted the following paragraphs at page 9, line 6:

Further, we note that in Bloom, the court construed Thomas as holding "that a defendant is entitled, whenever constitutionally permissible, to the benefits of amendatory legislation which mitigates the penalty for a crime." 195 Colo. at 251, 577 P.2d at 292 ("[t]he legislature intended the changed legal standards to apply wherever constitutionally permissible."); see also Thomas, 185 Colo. at 391, 525 P.2d at 1137.

Citing Riley v. People, 828 P.2d 254, 258 (Colo. 1992), the People assert that, under Thomas, "a defendant is not entitled to the ameliorative effects of amendatory legislation if the General Assembly has not clearly indicated its intent to require such retroactive application." The People argue, therefore, that defendant is not so entitled because there was ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.