Changes to Community Corrections Contemplated by Colorado Senate

SB 110-254 contemplates changes to non-residential community corrections programs, insofar as it would permit time credit for these programs.  Additionally, the bill creates criteria for when someone serving a sentence to community corrections may be considered for early termination of his or her sentence.  Specifically,a defendant who has successfully completed the residential phase of a community corrections sentence, has paid the costs of the residential program in full, and is being supervised on nonresidential status at either a law or administrative level is eligible for consideration for early termination of his or her community corrections sentence by the court.
When an individual fits that criteria, their probation officer must submit a petition for early termination to the court, also notifying the district attorney and defendant of the petition’s filing.  Also, the probation officer will provide victim notification where it is required to do so.  Then, the court will decide whether to grant the petition based on factors enumerated in the proposed law: the defendant’s assessed risk of reoffense, victim input, the defendant’s compliance with the terms and conditions of the sentence or community corrections program, completion of any treatment required by the court or community corrections program, and other factors deemed relevant by the court.
If in fact termination is granted, any outstanding court-ordered restitution, costs, and fees may be converted to a civil judgment.
The bill additionally would remove the existing 25% cap on the amount of time credit deductions that can be awarded, and would give community corrections discretion in the forfeiting of time credits for those who abscond.
Share
Posted in criminal defense, criminal law, legislation | Leave a comment

New Bill Introduced in Senate Seeks to Impose Changes to Colorado Parole Board

Senate Bill 11-241, recently introduced in the Colorado Senate, seeks to implement several different changes to the operation of the Colorado Parole Board.

Specifically, the bill requires that Parole Board members have a minimum of a bachelor’s degree, at least five years experience in a relevant field, and knowledge of issues related to parole.  Also, the bill requires each Parole Board member to complete a minimum of twenty hours of training annually.

The bill also makes modifications to the special needs parole program, insofar as it redefines what constitutes a special needs offender.  It allows inmates convicted of violent offenses (except for those who are not eligible for parole) to be considered for special need parole if they meet the other criteria. However, it does require that people convicted of a class 1 felony committed prior to 1990 (who have a parole eligibility date) serve a minimum of 20 years before eligibility for consideration for special needs parole.  The bill does allow DOC to refer an inmate to the Parole Board for special needs parole at any point and specifies what must be included in the referral, including a review of the inmate’s medical condition, likelihood of re-offense, a recommendation, any victim input received, and details of the parole plan.

Additionally, the bill creates a presumption of parole for inmates that meet eligibility criteria and have an ICE detainer.  In order to be eligible for this presumption of parole an inmate must: (1) be parole eligible; (2) have been convicted of a nonviolent offense; (3) be assessed to be medium or low risk of re-offense; and (4) have an active ICE detainer that ICE will execute if the inmate is granted parole.  If an inmate meets these criteria, only a majority vote of the Board can deny parole. A condition of parole must be that ICE take custody of the inmate. If ICE withdraws its detainer or indicates that it will not take the inmate into custody, the Parole Board must conduct a recission hearing to reconsider granting of parole.

 

 

Share
Posted in criminal defense, criminal law, legislation | Leave a comment

Impact of Immigration Holds in Colorado Criminal Cases

A criminal case involving a U.S. citizen and a criminal case involving a non-citizen are radically different.  A U.S. citizen need only worry about jail time, fines, and other court imposed conditions.  Also, a U.S. citizen can pay a bond and remain at liberty while his case is pending.

Things can go very differently for a non-citizen.  Once a non-citizen is arrested and taken into custody, immigration authorities are notified and have the power to place an “immigration hold” on the case.  That means that even if the non-citizen pays his bond, he will be released to immigration custody rather than remaining at liberty.

If immigration charges are filed, an immigration bond will be set.  At that point, the non-citizen can pay the immigration bond and remain out of custody during the pendency of his criminal and immigration cases.

Recently, the Colorado Senate considered, but ultimately rejected, a bill that would have penalized bail-bond firms in cases where their clients are ultimately deported as undocumented immigrants.

Share
Posted in criminal defense, criminal law, legislation | Leave a comment

Colorado Senate Bill Targets Meth Manufacture

The Colorado Senate is now considering a bill that would make all drugs containing pseudo ephedrine unavailable over the counter. Currently, some restrictions on the sale and purchase of this drug already exist – including a minimum age for purchase, and a limit on the amount of the drug an individual can purchase.

Drugs containing pseudo ephedrine are sought after as precursors for the manufacture of methamphetamine.  While this drug is typically available in drugs aiming to address cold and flu symptoms, it can be used to create the highly addictive drug.

The Bill aims to restrict the ability of methamphetamine “cooks” to manufacture the drug.  However, it could also have the effect of making it more difficult for some in need of pseudo ephedrine for legal purposes to obtain the drug – given that they would need a prescription.

Opponents to the bill have argued that a more effective means of targeting the cooks would be to create a statewide database tracking pseudo ephedrine purchases.

Share
Posted in criminal defense, criminal law, drug crimes, felonies, legislation | Leave a comment

House Committee Kills Juvenile Parole Bill

Recently, the State House Committee voted down a bill that would reverse the life sentences of 48 murders in Colorado.  Each of these individuals was a juvenile at the time they committed the offense for which they are incarcerated.  Between 1992 and 2006, Colorado applied life without parole to certain juvenile offenders.  This was changed in 2006.  However, for those juveniles sentenced between 1992 and 2006, parole is not possible despite this change in the law.

What HB 1287 would have done is granted people convicted as juveniles parole eligibility after 40 calendar years in prison.  Even if paroled, they would have remained under the supervision of the Colorado Department of Corrections as parolees for a lifetime.  Parole would not have been automatic, and instead would only have given these individuals a potential second chance.

 Several victims’ families vehemently opposed the Bill.

Share
Posted in criminal defense, criminal law, legislation, violent crimes | Leave a comment

Proposed Changes to Identity Theft Statute in Colorado

The Colorado House of Representatives is considering changes to the identity theft statute, in reaction to a case decided by the Supreme Court in 2010 (Flores-Figueroa v. United States).

The changes proposed would add falsely claiming the personal identifying information of another person with intent to obtain or maintain employment to the list of actions considered to be identity theft.  Furthermore, to commit identity theft it would not be necessary that the person be aware that the personal identifying

The bill clarifies certain statutory language describing the offense of identity theft. Falsely claiming the personal identifying information of another person with intent to obtain or maintain employment is added to the list of actions considered as identity theft. To commit identity theft, it is not necessary that a person be aware that the personal identifying information involved in the commission of the offense actually belongs to another person.  The Flores-Figueroa case held that the government could not establish aggravated identity theft without also establishing the defendant had such knowledge.

The bill further amends certain language describing the elements of the offense of criminal impersonation to require the assumption of a false or fictitious identity or legal capacity under some circumstances and the assumption of a false or fictitious identity or capacity, legal or otherwise, in other circumstances. Using false or fictitious personal identifying information shall constitute the assumption of a false or fictitious identity or capacity for the purposes of charging a person with criminal impersonation.

 

Share
Posted in criminal defense, criminal law, felonies | Leave a comment

Charged with Domestic Violence? An Overview of Colorado Domestic Violence Law

Domestic Violence is not necessarily “violent”.

“Domestic violence” is an act or threatened act of violence upon a person with whom you have been involved in an “intimate relationship.” It also includes crimes against a partner’s property, when used as a method of coercion, control, punishment, intimidation, or revenge.

There does not have to be a current boyfriend/girlfriend or husband/wife relationship for there to be “domestic violence”.

The key is that there is, or once was, an “intimate relationship”- a relationship between spouses, former spouses, past or present unmarried couples, or persons who are both parents of the same child.

If convicted, you will have to do treatment.  The question is – how much?

After September 1, 2010, any individual sentenced for a domestic violence conviction will be required to complete either a Level A (low intensity), Level B (moderate intensity), or Level C (high intensity) track of treatment. This is a change from previous law, which imposed a requirement of 36 weeks of treatment across the board. Also, an individual may be permitted to do all or some of his treatment in individual, as opposed to group, sessions if his or her circumstance is deemed to constitute “special circumstances”. Any individual who is in “severe denial” may also be placed in individual treatment. Level A and B would require an individual to attend meetings once a week, whereas Level C would require two meetings a week. An individual’s level of treatment may be increased based on any perceived lack of progress.

An arrest must be made if domestic violence is alleged.

An arrest must be made if domestic violence is alleged by anyone calling 911, or is inferred by the police or dispatcher – whether or not the caller is involved in the alleged incident. Once thepolice arrive, one or both of the parties will be arrested.

If one of the parties seeks medical treatment after a domestic dispute, medical personnel are required to report the case to police.

Once reported, the other party in the dispute will be arrested.

During the pendency of a domestic violence case, it is a violation of federal law to purchase or be

in the possession of a firearm or other dangerous weapon.

A mandatory protection order is imposed in all domestic violence cases, prohibiting the defendant from having any contact, direct or indirect, with the victim.  From the time this protection order is imposed, it is a violation of federal law to purchase or be in the possession of a firearm or other dangerous weapon.

Federal law prohibits those convicted of a MCDV, or Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence, from possessing a firearm.

The federal law defining domestic violence is substantially different from Colorado’s.  The Federal definition requires the use (or threatened use) of force.   Misdemeanor property crimes such as criminal mischief don’t qualify and in that respect the Federal definition is narrower.  But, the federal definition does include crimes against children, so a plea to misdemeanor child abuse, which would not be labeled as domestic violence in state court, could trigger a Federal firearm prohibition if the charge involves force or threatened force.

Pursuant to federal law whether there is a conviction is determined by the law of the State.  A straight plea is definitely a conviction.  A deferred is not a conviction after it has been completed and the guilty plea has been withdrawn as provided in the statute.

If you are not a U.S. citizen, a domestic violence conviction may result in deportation or your immigration status may otherwise be negatively impacted.

The victim does not have the ability to “drop the charges”.

Once the police are called and a domestic violence arrest is made, the victim does not have any ability to “drop the charges” or to decide whether or not to “press charges”.  Rather, only the District Attorney’s office has discretion to dismiss the case.

The victim has the right to consult with the District Attorney before any offer is extended to the defendant, and also has the right to be consulted when bond is addressed.

Under the Victims Rights Act (VRA), the victim has the right to:  be informed of all “critical stages” of the criminal justice process (victims must request notification, in writing, for post-sentencing critical stages); to be present at specified critical stages in the criminal justice process; to be informed about what steps can be taken if there is any intimidation or harassment by a person accused or convicted of a crime or any acting on that person’s behalf; to be present and heard regarding bond reduction or modification, acceptance of a plea agreement, sentencing or modification of a sentence; to consult with the district attorney prior to any disposition of the case or before the case goes to trial and to be informed of the final disposition of the case; to be informed of the status of the case and any scheduling changes or cancellations, if known in advance; to prepare a victim impact statement and to be present and/or heard at the sentencing hearing.

If you have been charged with a domestic violence offense, it is in your best interests to seek the advice of a denver domestic violence defense attorney at your earliest convenience.

Share
Posted in criminal law, domestic violence, felonies | Leave a comment

iPhone Left in Convenience Store Bathroom Not “Abandoned”

Interesting Colorado Supreme Court case handed down on the 31st of March – People v. Schutter, an interlocutory appeal brought by the prosecution on a Pitkin County felony drug matter.

The people appealed, challenging the suppression of evidence of drug sales discovered following a warrantless search of a defendant’s iPhone.  A convenience store clerk had given the iPhone to an officer roughly an hour after the defendant had inadvertently locked it in the store’s restroom along with the bathroom key.  Apparently, the clerk had refused defendant’s request to retrieve the phone because he was too busy at the time, and that defendant left the convenience store when he was told he’d have to come back later to get his phone.

The district court found that the defendant had no intent to abandon his iPhone.  Even if he had “lost” the iPhone, the police had exceeded the permissible scope of a search for identifying information by reading several of defendant’s text messages.  The Supreme Court agreed, holding that under the circumstances of this case, defendant’s iPhone could not be considered abandoned or lost such that the police could justifiably have searched it for identifying information.

 

Share
Posted in caselaw, criminal law, drug crimes | Leave a comment

New Medical Marijuana Laws on the Horizon

House Bill 11-1043, addressing the issue of medical marijuana, currently is being considered in the Colorado House of Representatives.  That bill would clarify a number of provisions in the Colorado Medical Marijuana Code.

One significant change would be that a primary caregiver who cultivates medical marijuana for his or her patients must register the cultivation site, and all patient identification numbers, with the medical marijuana state licensing authority and comply with all zoning and building codes.

Under current law, a medical marijuana license may not be issued to a person who has been convicted of a felony within the last 5 years or who has ever been convicted of a felony drug offense. The bill would change that requirement so that only those persons who have been convicted of felony drug offense in the last 5 years may be denied a license on that basis.

Current law imposes a 2-year residency requirement on all license applicants. The bill changes the residency requirement so that it applies only to those applicants who are going to be owners of a medical marijuana business.

Perhaps most significantly, the bill creates 2 new classes of medical marijuana licenses: (1) A primary caregiver cultivation license, which gives a primary caregiver who has received a waiver to serve more than 5 patients or who grows more than 30 plants at a time the authority to grow medical marijuana only for his or her patients or for the patients of another primary caregiver, if the licensee has been delegated authority over the patients. (2) An infused-products manufacturing facility license, which allows a facility to be licensed for exclusive use by multiple infused-products manufacturers.

The bill further clarifies that if a patient has applied for, but has not yet received, a registry identification card, the patient may present the application and a photo identification at the time of purchase in lieu of the registration card.

Share
Posted in criminal law, legislation, medical marijuana | Leave a comment

Senate Bill 11-044: Collateral Consequences of a Guilty Plea

Among the more interesting bills being considered by the Senate this term is Senate Bill 11-044.  That bill acknowledges that the collateral consequences of a guilty plea and corresponding conviction in a criminal case can be far-reaching and severe, and that should they not be addressed the risk of recidivism is heightened.

The bill creates a process for persons to seek relief from those collateral consequences – which can include the loss of employment opportunities, housing, etc.  The bill would require the state public defender to identify and publish a collection of the collateral consequences that are possible in Colorado, which will later be published on the state judicial website.  At a defendant’s first court appearance, the court will inform the defendant about the possible collateral consequences of a conviction – something that is not required of the court of of the defense attorney right now.

Additionally, the bill would permit a defendant to petition the court for relief from the collateral consequences of a conviction or for restoration of rights.

Share
Posted in criminal law, legislation | Leave a comment