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 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 ...