People v. McKnight

Colorado Court of Appeals

People v. McKnight

628 P.2d 628, 1981 Colo. App. LEXIS 696

CourtColorado Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 16, 1981

Docket81CA0213

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 628 P.2d 628 (People v. McKnight) 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. McKnight, 628 P.2d 628, 1981 Colo. App. LEXIS 696 (Colo. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

SMITH, Judge.

This is a non-adversary review under C.A.R. 4(d)(3) and (4), pursuant to § 18-1-409.5, C.R.S.1973 (1979 Cum.Supp.). The sentence imposed by the trial court, eighteen months incarceration is below the presumptive range of two to four years for the offense of fraudulent use of credit devices to which the defendant entered a plea of guilty.

The record before this court supports the findings of the trial court that there were in fact extraordinary mitigating circumstances supporting the imposition of a sentence below the presumptive range.

However, we note that the trial court deleted from the judgment of conviction, sentence, and mittimus the requirement that the defendant serve one year of parole at the conclusion of his sentence. Section 18-1-105(1)(a), or § 18-1-105(6) C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl. Vol. 8) does not authorize the trial court to eliminate the requirement of one year of parole. The cause is therefore remanded with directions that the trial court issue an amended judgment of conviction, sentence, and mittimus in conformity herewith. When so amended, the sentence is affirmed.

COYTE and VAN CISE, JJ., concur.

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

SMITH, Judge.

This is a non-adversary review under C.A.R. 4(d)(3) and (4), pursuant to § 18-1-409.5, C.R.S.1973 (1979 Cum.Supp.). The sentence imposed by the trial court, eighteen months incarceration is below the presumptive range of two to four years for the offense of fraudulent use of credit devices to which the defendant entered a plea of guilty.

The record before this court supports the findings of the trial court that there were in fact extraordinary mitigating circumstances supporting the imposition of a sentence below the presumptive range.

However, we note that the trial court deleted from the judgment of conviction, sentence, and mittimus the requirement that the defendant serve one year of parole at the conclusion of his sentence. Section 18-1-105(1)(a), or § 18-1-105(6) C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl. Vol. 8) does not authorize the trial court to eliminate the requirement of one year of parole. The cause is therefore remanded with directions that the trial court issue an amended judgment of conviction, sentence, and mittimus in conformity herewith. When so amended, the sentence is affirmed.

COYTE and VAN CISE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

628 P.2d 628, 1981 Colo. App. LEXIS 696, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mcknight-coloctapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack