Hemphill v. District Court

593 P.2d 972, 197 Colo. 431
CourtSupreme Court of Colorado
DecidedApril 30, 1979
DocketNo. 79SA118
StatusPublished

This text of 593 P.2d 972 (Hemphill v. District Court) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Colorado primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hemphill v. District Court, 593 P.2d 972, 197 Colo. 431 (Colo. 1979).

Opinion

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HODGES

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is an original proceeding in which the petitioner, James Hemp-hill, seeks a writ directing the respondents to allow the warden of the Denver County jail to exercise his discretion in deducting good time from the petitioner’s sentence. We issued a rule to show cause, and ordered the release of the petitioner pending review of the issue presented. We now make the rule absolute.

The petitioner was convicted of a class three misdemeanor and sentenced to the Denver County jail for a term of six months “flat.” After five months, the petitioner had accumulated enough good time to permit his immediate release were it not for the trial court’s “flat” time sentence.

A convicted defendant’s punishment is discretionary with the trial court within statutory limits. People v. Pauldino, 187 Colo. 61, 528 P.2d 384 (1974); People v. Jones, 176 Colo. 61, 489 P.2d 596 (1971). Section 17-26-109, C.R.S. 1973 (1978 Repl. Vol. 8) provides that “[ejvery person who is sentenced to and imprisoned in any county jail of this state . . . and who performs faithfully the duties assigned to him during his imprisonment therein is entitled to a deduction from the time of his sentence of two days in each month.” It is not within the power of the sentencing court to impose a sentence which denies to'one imprisoned in the county jail the benefits of this statute. The obvious effect of this statute is to proscribe the imposition of a “flat” time sentence which denies a defendant his statutory right to a reduction from the time of his sentence for good behavior. The so-called “flat!’ sentence imposed here has no statutory meaning or validity.

The rule is made absolute.

MR. JUSTICE CARRIGAN does not participate.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People v. Jones
489 P.2d 596 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1971)
People v. Pauldino
528 P.2d 384 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1974)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
593 P.2d 972, 197 Colo. 431, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hemphill-v-district-court-colo-1979.