Phillips v. District Court

Supreme Court of Colorado

Phillips v. District Court

535 P.2d 199, 188 Colo. 419, 1975 Colo. LEXIS 686

CourtSupreme Court of Colorado

DecidedMay 19, 1975

DocketNo. 26802

StatusPublished

This text of 535 P.2d 199 (Phillips 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

Phillips v. District Court, 535 P.2d 199, 188 Colo. 419, 1975 Colo. LEXIS 686 (Colo. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

The petition for relief in the nature of mandamus alleged that the respondent district court in a non-capital case entered an order which in effect refused bail to petitioner pending trial on charges filed against him.

We issued a rule on the respondent to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. The petition correctly pointed out that Art. n, Sec. 19 of the Colorado Constitution and Section 16-4-101, C.R.S. 1973 states that all defendants in non-capital cases are entitled to bail.

A response has now been made on behalf of the respondent district court. Also, the petitioner has filed a statement that on May 1, 1975, the respondent district court conducted a bail hearing and set bail for this petitioner. The issue initially presented is now moot, and we therefore discharge the rule.

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

PER CURIAM

The petition for relief in the nature of mandamus alleged that the respondent district court in a non-capital case entered an order which in effect refused bail to petitioner pending trial on charges filed against him.

We issued a rule on the respondent to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. The petition correctly pointed out that Art. n, Sec. 19 of the Colorado Constitution and Section 16-4-101, C.R.S. 1973 states that all defendants in non-capital cases are entitled to bail.

A response has now been made on behalf of the respondent district court. Also, the petitioner has filed a statement that on May 1, 1975, the respondent district court conducted a bail hearing and set bail for this petitioner. The issue initially presented is now moot, and we therefore discharge the rule.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

535 P.2d 199, 188 Colo. 419, 1975 Colo. LEXIS 686, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/phillips-v-district-court-colo-1975.