People v. Lobato

Colorado Court of Appeals

People v. Lobato

703 P.2d 623, 1985 Colo. App. LEXIS 1031

CourtColorado Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 21, 1985

DocketNo. 82CA1307

StatusPublished

This text of 703 P.2d 623 (People v. Lobato) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Colorado Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Lobato, 703 P.2d 623, 1985 Colo. App. LEXIS 1031 (Colo. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PIERCE, Judge.

Defendant, John Patrick Lobato, appeals from the sentence imposed upon the judgment of conviction entered following his plea of guilty to criminal attempt to commit escape, under § 18-2-101, C.R.S. (1978 Repl. Vol. 8). We vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.

Defendant walked away from the Williams Street Community Corrections Facility, where he was serving a two-year term for second degree burglary and theft. Upon defendant’s guilty plea to the charge of criminal attempt to commit escape, a class 5 felony, the trial court imposed a sentence of two years and one day based on § 18-l-105(9)(a)(V), C.R.S. (1984 Cum. Supp.).

We agree with defendant that the court erroneously concluded that § 18 — 1— 105(9)(a)(V), C.R.S. (1984 Cum.Supp.), required imposition of a sentence in excess of [624]*624the presumptive range. In People v. Martinez, 703 P.2d 619 (Colo.App.1985), we held that upon conviction for the crime of attempted escape under § 18-8-208.1, C.R.S. (1978 Repl. Vol. 8), the trial court may sentence within the presumptive range. The same rationale applies to criminal attempt to commit escape under § 18-2-101, C.R.S. (1978 Repl. Vol. 8). Therefore, here, the trial court failed to exercise its discretion in determining whether to impose a sentence within the applicable presumptive range.

The sentence is vacated, and the cause is remanded for resentencing in accordance with the principles announced herein.

SMITH and BABCOCK, JJ., concur.

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

PIERCE, Judge.

Defendant, John Patrick Lobato, appeals from the sentence imposed upon the judgment of conviction entered following his plea of guilty to criminal attempt to commit escape, under § 18-2-101, C.R.S. (1978 Repl. Vol. 8). We vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.

Defendant walked away from the Williams Street Community Corrections Facility, where he was serving a two-year term for second degree burglary and theft. Upon defendant’s guilty plea to the charge of criminal attempt to commit escape, a class 5 felony, the trial court imposed a sentence of two years and one day based on § 18-l-105(9)(a)(V), C.R.S. (1984 Cum. Supp.).

We agree with defendant that the court erroneously concluded that § 18 — 1— 105(9)(a)(V), C.R.S. (1984 Cum.Supp.), required imposition of a sentence in excess of [624]*624the presumptive range. In People v. Martinez, 703 P.2d 619 (Colo.App.1985), we held that upon conviction for the crime of attempted escape under § 18-8-208.1, C.R.S. (1978 Repl. Vol. 8), the trial court may sentence within the presumptive range. The same rationale applies to criminal attempt to commit escape under § 18-2-101, C.R.S. (1978 Repl. Vol. 8). Therefore, here, the trial court failed to exercise its discretion in determining whether to impose a sentence within the applicable presumptive range.

The sentence is vacated, and the cause is remanded for resentencing in accordance with the principles announced herein.

SMITH and BABCOCK, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

703 P.2d 623, 1985 Colo. App. LEXIS 1031, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lobato-coloctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack