People, By and Through VanMeveren v. District Court In and For Larimer County
Decision Date | 07 October 1974 |
Docket Number | No. 26599,26599 |
Citation | 527 P.2d 50,186 Colo. 335 |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, By and Through their duly elected and appointed representatives, Stuart A. VanMEVEREN, District Attorney, and Larry R. Abrahamson, Deputy District Attorney, Eighth Judicial District, State of Colorado, Petitioners, v. The DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR the COUTNY OF LARIMER, State of Colorado, and the Honorable Conrad L. Ball, one of the judges thereof, Respondents. |
Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Stuart A. VanMeveren, Dist. Atty., Larry R. Abrahamson, Deputy Dist. Atty., Fort Collins, for petitioners.
Richard B. Manges, Fort Collins, for respondents.
We issued a rule to show cause in this matter, and now make the rule absolute.
A defendant is charged in the respondent court with having committed a Class 4 felony, perjury in the first degree. The defendant requested leave to file an application for deferred prosecution under Colo.Sess.Laws 1972, ch. 44, 30--7--401 at 224. The respondent court granted leave to file the application over the objection of petitioners (district attorney and deputy district attorney). The application was filed and on June 11, 1974, the respondent court set the matter down for July 9, 1974, in order to give the probation department a chance to submit a report. Such a report was filed, and on July 9, 1974, the court continued the matter until July 23, 1974, to give the petitioners an opportunity to review the application and probation report. At the July 23rd hearing the petitioner Larry R. Abrahamson, deputy district attorney, was present. The following is from the transcript of that hearing:
'THE COURT: * * *
The petitioners then asked us for a writ of prohibition to prevent the respondent court from requiring them to specify the reasons why they do not consider this a proper case for deferred prosecution.
While he is an officer of the court as any...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dickerson v. State
... ... STATE of Alabama ... 7 Div. 902 ... Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama ... April 20, ... by the March, 1981, Session of the Calhoun County Grand Jury for trafficking in cannabis contrary ... on Saturday, November 15, 1980, District Investigator Charles Winfrey, along with several ... See generally, People v. Atchley, 97 Ill.App.3d 85, 52 Ill.Dec. 585, ... made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Therefore, the ... District Court In and For the County of Larimer, 186 Colo. 335, 527 P.2d 50 (1974); State v ... ...
-
People v. In the Interest of N.R., Case No. 05SA273 (Colo. 7/31/2006)
... ... Case No. 05SA294 ... Supreme Court of Colorado ... En Banc ... June 26, 2006 ... abused its discretion in disqualifying district attorney and assistant district attorney based on ... Appeal from the District Court Yuma County District Court Case No. 05JD1 Honorable Michael ... ...
-
Billis v. State
... ... Supreme Court of Wyoming ... Oct. 5, 1990 ... Rehearing ... Attys. Gen., Cheyenne, and Campbell County Prosecutor's Office: John D. Young, County and ... or amending a bill during its passage through the legislature so as to change the bill's ... to consent and, alternatively, the district court's certification of the state's consent ... Practices, 1964 Wash.U.Law Quarterly 1." People v. District Court in and for County of Larimer, ... court in People, By and Through Vanmeveren v. District Court In and For Larimer County, 186 ... ...
-
Bragg v. Office Of The Dist. Attorney
...621 P.2d 1357, 1361 (Colo.1980) (“The district attorney is a state public officer.”); People ex rel. VanMeveren v. District Court for Larimer County, 186 Colo. 335, 527 P.2d 50, 52 (1974) (“A district attorney belongs to the executive Anderson v. Adams County, 41 Colo.App. 441, 592 P.2d 3, ......
-
Cba Ethics Committee Opinion
...v. District Court, 767 P.2d 239 (Colo. 1989); Beacom v. Board of County Comm., 657 P.2d 440 (Colo. 1983); People v. District Court, 186 Colo. 335, 527 P.2d 50 (1974). A district attorney has the power to investigate and determine who should be prosecuted. People v. Schwartz, 678 P.2d 1000 (......
-
Chapter 1 - § 1.8 • PLEA NEGOTIATION
...require the prosecutor to give his or her reasons if he or she refuses to consent to a pretrial diversion. People v. District Court, 527 P.2d 50 (Colo. 1974). Upon entry of an order for pretrial diversion, sureties on any bond given for the appearance of the defendant are released from liab......
-
Formal Opinion No. 96-ex Parte Communications With Represented Persons During Criminal and Civil Regulatory/investigations and Proceedings, Revised
...Court, 767 P.2d 239, 241 (Colo. 1989); Beacom v. Board of County Comm'rs, 657 P.2d 440, 445 (Colo. 1983); People v. District Court, 186 Colo. 335, 338, 527 P.2d 50, 52 (1974). A district attorney has the power to investigate and determine who should be prosecuted. People v. Schwartz, 678 P.......
-
Decision-Making Of The District Attorney: Diverting Or Prosecuting Intrafamilial Child Sexual Abuse Offenders
...71 N.J. 85,(1976); United States v. James H. Smith, 354 A.2d 510 (1976); and Peoplev. District Court in and for the County of Larimer, 527 P.2d 50 (1974).2 A statement was coded as discrepant if there was a difference betweenvictims’ and defendants’ reports with regard to the number of vict......