Richardson v. Hesse

Supreme Court of Colorado

Richardson v. Hesse

823 P.2d 150, 16 Brief Times Rptr. 8, 1992 Colo. LEXIS 1, 1992 WL 4073

CourtSupreme Court of Colorado

DecidedJanuary 13, 1992

DocketNo. 91SA82

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 823 P.2d 150 (Richardson v. Hesse) 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

Richardson v. Hesse, 823 P.2d 150, 16 Brief Times Rptr. 8, 1992 Colo. LEXIS 1, 1992 WL 4073 (Colo. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal brought pursuant to section 13-4-102(l)(e), 6A C.R.S. (1987), from an order of the district court dismissing the appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See § 13-46-101, 6A C.R.S. (1987). He raised two claims for relief in the district court.

The appellant’s first claim is that the trial court in which he was convicted and sentenced for aggravated robbery and theft lacked jurisdiction over his person and the subject matter because his preliminary hearing was held by the district court rather than the county court. This same contention was properly rejected on the direct appeal of the appellant’s conviction. See Richardson v. People, No. 86CA1154, slip op. at 1-2 (Colo.App. June 23, 1988), cert. denied, No. 88SC464 (Colo. Jan. 3, 1989).

The appellant’s second claim is that he has been placed in administrative segregation in violation of Department of Corrections regulations and contrary to the federal and state constitutions. Because he “did [151]*151not allege that he is entitled to discharge or that the Department of Corrections violated a fundamental constitutional right affecting his current conditions of confinement,” his petition is insufficient on its face. Deason v. Kautzky, 786 P.2d 420, 423 (Colo.1990). Therefore, the district court correctly dismissed the appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

The order of the district court is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal brought pursuant to section 13-4-102(l)(e), 6A C.R.S. (1987), from an order of the district court dismissing the appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See § 13-46-101, 6A C.R.S. (1987). He raised two claims for relief in the district court.

The appellant’s first claim is that the trial court in which he was convicted and sentenced for aggravated robbery and theft lacked jurisdiction over his person and the subject matter because his preliminary hearing was held by the district court rather than the county court. This same contention was properly rejected on the direct appeal of the appellant’s conviction. See Richardson v. People, No. 86CA1154, slip op. at 1-2 (Colo.App. June 23, 1988), cert. denied, No. 88SC464 (Colo. Jan. 3, 1989).

The appellant’s second claim is that he has been placed in administrative segregation in violation of Department of Corrections regulations and contrary to the federal and state constitutions. Because he “did [151]*151not allege that he is entitled to discharge or that the Department of Corrections violated a fundamental constitutional right affecting his current conditions of confinement,” his petition is insufficient on its face. Deason v. Kautzky, 786 P.2d 420, 423 (Colo.1990). Therefore, the district court correctly dismissed the appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

The order of the district court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

823 P.2d 150, 16 Brief Times Rptr. 8, 1992 Colo. LEXIS 1, 1992 WL 4073, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richardson-v-hesse-colo-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack