People v. Romero

Supreme Court of Colorado

People v. Romero

626 P.2d 660, 1981 Colo. LEXIS 642

CourtSupreme Court of Colorado

DecidedApril 6, 1981

DocketNo. 80SA493

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 626 P.2d 660 (People v. Romero) 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

People v. Romero, 626 P.2d 660, 1981 Colo. LEXIS 642 (Colo. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

HODGES, Chief Justice.

The defendant-appellant, Frank P. Romero, appeals the trial court’s judgment denying his post-conviction Crim.P. 35 motion. He argues that he is entitled to be resen-tenced under the 1977 version of the amendatory legislation of H.B. 1589, Colo. Sess.Laws 1977, ch. 216, at 861. Specifically, the appellant asserts that the Governor’s action to delay the effective date of this legislation constituted lawmaking by the executive branch in violation of the separation of powers doctrine, and therefore the bill became effective without delay on July 1, 1978. This argument was rejected in People v. McKenna, Colo., 611 P.2d 574 (1980), which has consistently been upheld. E. g., People v. Lopez, Colo., 624 P.2d 1301 (1981); People v. Scott, Colo., 615 P.2d 35 (1980); People v. Cunningham, Colo., 614 P.2d 886 (1980); People v. Foster, Colo., 615 [661]*661P.2d 652 (1980); People v. Cameron, Colo., 613 P.2d 1312 (1980); People v. Triggs, Colo., 613 P.2d 317 (1980); People v. Warren, Colo., 612 P.2d 1124 (1980).

The judgment is affirmed.

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

HODGES, Chief Justice.

The defendant-appellant, Frank P. Romero, appeals the trial court’s judgment denying his post-conviction Crim.P. 35 motion. He argues that he is entitled to be resen-tenced under the 1977 version of the amendatory legislation of H.B. 1589, Colo. Sess.Laws 1977, ch. 216, at 861. Specifically, the appellant asserts that the Governor’s action to delay the effective date of this legislation constituted lawmaking by the executive branch in violation of the separation of powers doctrine, and therefore the bill became effective without delay on July 1, 1978. This argument was rejected in People v. McKenna, Colo., 611 P.2d 574 (1980), which has consistently been upheld. E. g., People v. Lopez, Colo., 624 P.2d 1301 (1981); People v. Scott, Colo., 615 P.2d 35 (1980); People v. Cunningham, Colo., 614 P.2d 886 (1980); People v. Foster, Colo., 615 [661]*661P.2d 652 (1980); People v. Cameron, Colo., 613 P.2d 1312 (1980); People v. Triggs, Colo., 613 P.2d 317 (1980); People v. Warren, Colo., 612 P.2d 1124 (1980).

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

626 P.2d 660, 1981 Colo. LEXIS 642, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-romero-colo-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack