People v. Zamora

Colorado Court of Appeals

People v. Zamora

665 P.2d 153, 1983 Colo. App. LEXIS 867

CourtColorado Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 10, 1983

Docket82CA0560

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 665 P.2d 153 (People v. Zamora) 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. Zamora, 665 P.2d 153, 1983 Colo. App. LEXIS 867 (Colo. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

KELLY, Judge.

A one-year sentence for contempt was imposed on Anthony Ullibari for his refusal to testify in the prosecution of William Robert Zamora. Ullibari contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the judgment. He further argues that the one-year sentence was impermissible because no opportunity for a jury trial was given. We affirm the finding of contempt, vacate the sentence and remand the case to the trial court for resentencing not in excess of six months.

Ullibari’s argument that the trial court’s findings were insufficient under C.R.C.P. 107(b) to support the judgment for contempt is without merit. The trial court’s specific findings that Ullibari’s refusal to testify constituted offensive conduct amounting to an obstruction of justice, and that this behavior was not excused by his fear of retribution from other penitentiary inmates, satisfied the requirements of C.R.C.P. 107(b). See Board of Water Works v. Pueblo Water Works Employees Local 1045, 196 Colo. 308, 586 P.2d 18 (1978); Lobb v. Hodges, 641 P.2d 310 (Colo.App.1982). However, confinement for contempt for longer than six months is constitutionally impermissible unless the person has been given the opportunity for a jury trial. Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194, 88 S.Ct. 1477, 20 L.Ed.2d 522 (1968); see also Padilla v. Padilla, 645 P.2d 1327 (Colo.App.1982).

As the record is devoid of evidence that Ullibari waived a jury trial in this contempt action, see Rice v. People, 193 Colo. 270, 565 P.2d 940 (1977), we conclude that the trial court was without authority to impose the one-year sentence.

Accordingly, the judgment finding Ulli-bari in contempt is affirmed. The sentence is vacated and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to resentence not in excess of six months.

VAN CISE and KIRSHBAUM, JJ., concur.

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

KELLY, Judge.

A one-year sentence for contempt was imposed on Anthony Ullibari for his refusal to testify in the prosecution of William Robert Zamora. Ullibari contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the judgment. He further argues that the one-year sentence was impermissible because no opportunity for a jury trial was given. We affirm the finding of contempt, vacate the sentence and remand the case to the trial court for resentencing not in excess of six months.

Ullibari’s argument that the trial court’s findings were insufficient under C.R.C.P. 107(b) to support the judgment for contempt is without merit. The trial court’s specific findings that Ullibari’s refusal to testify constituted offensive conduct amounting to an obstruction of justice, and that this behavior was not excused by his fear of retribution from other penitentiary inmates, satisfied the requirements of C.R.C.P. 107(b). See Board of Water Works v. Pueblo Water Works Employees Local 1045, 196 Colo. 308, 586 P.2d 18 (1978); Lobb v. Hodges, 641 P.2d 310 (Colo.App.1982). However, confinement for contempt for longer than six months is constitutionally impermissible unless the person has been given the opportunity for a jury trial. Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194, 88 S.Ct. 1477, 20 L.Ed.2d 522 (1968); see also Padilla v. Padilla, 645 P.2d 1327 (Colo.App.1982).

As the record is devoid of evidence that Ullibari waived a jury trial in this contempt action, see Rice v. People, 193 Colo. 270, 565 P.2d 940 (1977), we conclude that the trial court was without authority to impose the one-year sentence.

Accordingly, the judgment finding Ulli-bari in contempt is affirmed. The sentence is vacated and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to resentence not in excess of six months.

VAN CISE and KIRSHBAUM, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

665 P.2d 153, 1983 Colo. App. LEXIS 867, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-zamora-coloctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack