Bernard v. Tinsley
| Decision Date | 10 October 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 19173,19173 |
| Citation | 355 P.2d 1098,144 Colo. 244 |
| Parties | Jack M. BERNARD, Plaintiff in Error, v. Harry C. TINSLEY, Warden Colorado State Penitentiary, and David Kiebach, Warden, Denver County Jail, Defendants in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Walter L. Gerash, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., J. F. Brauer, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendants in error.
This cause originated in the district court of the City and County of Denver, where plaintiff in error, hereinafter referred to as petitioner, filed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Pertinent facts are as follows:
On April 28, 1949, petitioner was found guilty in Denver district court of aggravated robbery. On April 29, 1949, the jury, by verdicts returned to Counts 2, 3 and 10 of the information, found petitioner to be the same individual who had committed three prior felonies. On June 15, 1949, petitioner was sentenced to a life term in the Colorado State Penitentiary, and on that same day mittimus was issued which stated that 'habitual criminal' was the crime for which sentence was imposed.
October 31, 1958, petitioner filed his petition in the trial court for a writ of habeas corpus alleging in substance:
(1) The since there is no such crime as 'habitual criminal' in Colorado, the life sentence (or any setence) for that crime would have to be void and he should therefore be set at liberty.
(2) That the 'habitual criminal' law is unconstitutional, violating Article II, Sections 20 and 25 of the Colorado Constitution and Section 1, Amendment 14, of the United States Constitution in that petitioner's punishment is cruel and unusual.
(3) That petitioner at time of trial and sentencing had only two prior felony convictions. The Tenth Count of the information did not charge a felony conviction but referred to a conviction in the State of Missouri when the petitioner was eighteen years old, for which he received a reformatory sentence.
After the writ was granted, return made, and answer to the return filed, a hearing was held on the matter, and on May 4, 1959, the trial court dismissed the petition. A motion for rehearing was filed and denied on May 19, 1959. Petitioner raises the same issues in this court.
The issue of the mittimus erroneously stating 'habitual criminal' has been disposed of the case of Sexton v. People, 143 Colo. ----, 351 P.2d 842, 843. The only relief to which petition...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Cisneros
...by persons sentenced as habitual criminals include People v. Thomas, 189 Colo. 490, 542 P.2d 387 (1975), and Bernard v. Tinsley, 144 Colo. 244, 355 P.2d 1098 (1960), cert. denied, 365 U.S. 830, 81 S.Ct. 718, 5 L.Ed.2d 708 (1961).11 In view of the provisions of our habitual criminal statute,......
-
People v. Bergstrom
...has no merit. The habitual criminal act has been specifically upheld in spite of its increased penalty provisions. Bernard v. Tinsley, 144 Colo. 244, 355 P.2d 1098; Vigil v. People, 137 Colo. 161, 322 P.2d 320. The legislature may, within broad limits, decide the penalty for each offense. P......
-
People v. Lake
...has no merit. The habitual criminal act has been specifically upheld in spite of its increased penalty provisions. Bernard v. Tinsley, 144 Colo. 244, 355 P.2d 1098; Vigil v. People, 137 Colo. 161, 322 P.2d 320. The legislature may, within broad limits, decide the penalty for each offense. (......
-
People v. Thomas, 26198
...385 U.S. 554, 87 S.Ct. 648, 17 L.Ed.2d 606 (1964); Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448, 82 S.Ct. 501, 7 L.Ed.2d 446 (1962); Bernard v. Tinsley, 144 Colo. 244, 355 P.2d 1098 (1960); Vigil v. People, 137 Colo. 161, 322 P.2d 320 In Oyler, the court was faced with the identical equal protection issue ......
-
Colorado's Habitual Criminal Act: an Overview
...People v. Marquez, 190 Colo. 255, 546 P.2d 482 (1976); People v. Bergstrom, 190 Colo. 105, 544 P.2d 396 (1975); Bernard v. Tinsley, 144 Colo. 244, 355 P.2d 1098 (1960), cert. denied, 365 U.S. 830 (1961); Vigil v. People, 137 Colo. 161, 322 P.2d 320 (1958); Wright v. People, 116 Colo. 306, 1......