PEOPLE EX REL. TA, 02CA2314.
| Docket Nº | No. 02CA2314. |
| Citation | 91 P.3d 473 |
| Case Date | March 25, 2004 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Colorado |
91 P.3d 473
The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Petitioner-Appellee,In the Interest of T.A., Juvenile-Appellant
No. 02CA2314.
Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. V.
March 25, 2004.
Ken Salazar, Attorney General, Jess A. Redman, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Petitioner-Appellee.
David S. Kaplan, Colorado State Public Defender, Beth Kelley, Deputy State Public
Opinion by Judge PICCONE.
T.A., a juvenile, appeals from a judgment adjudicating him delinquent based on a finding that he committed acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute two counts of the crime of menacing. We affirm.
At the initial detention hearing on July 25, 2002, the juvenile court found probable cause to support the charges, and concluded that the juvenile was a danger to himself and to the community. Accordingly, pursuant to § 19-2-508(3)(a)(IV)(D), C.R.S.2003, the court ordered that the juvenile remain in custody without bond. The People then filed a delinquency petition pursuant to § 19-2-508(3)(a)(V), C.R.S.2003.
Shortly thereafter, the juvenile court committed the juvenile to the Department of Youth Corrections (DYC) following his adjudication of delinquency in another case.
At the August 20, 2002, preliminary hearing in this case, the juvenile pleaded not guilty. Based on its determination that the sixty-day speedy trial period began to run on July 25, 2002, when the no-bond hold was issued, the court calculated that period to expire on September 23, 2002. The court then scheduled the trial to begin on September 10, 2002.
On August 30, 2002, over the juvenile's objection, the court vacated the no-bond hold, based on its conclusion that continued detention without bond in this case jeopardized the juvenile's progress in treatment in DYC in the other case. The court then recalculated the speedy trial period as beginning on August 20, 2002, the date the juvenile entered his not guilty plea, and expiring on October 21, 2002.
Because the juvenile was not transported to court for trial on September 10, 2002, the court rescheduled the trial to begin on October 9, 2002. On the first day of trial, the juvenile moved to dismiss the charges on the ground that the speedy trial period had expired on September 23, 2002. The court denied the motion and, at the conclusion of the proceeding, found that the juvenile had committed the acts alleged in the petition and adjudicated him a delinquent.
The juvenile's sole contention on appeal is that the court violated his statutory and constitutional rights to a speedy trial. Specifically, the juvenile argues that, because he was subject to a no-bond hold, § 19-2-509(4)(b), C.R.S.2003, applies and that the speedy trial period began to run on July 25, 2002, when the no-bond hold was issued. We are not persuaded.
Resolution of defendant's contention requires us to determine which of two speedy trial statutes governs the calculation of the speedy trial period applicable here—§ 19-2-508(3)(a)(IV)(D) or §...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mt. Hawley Ins. Co. v. Robinette Demolition, Inc.
...was entitled to a notice of cancellation of the policy, the defendants were not entitled to a notice of cancellation. Albertson's, Inc., 91 P.3d at 473. ¶ 34 While Cobra and the defendants are under the same policy for purposes of Cobra's duty to notify Mt. Hawley of Mr. Bucholz's accident,......
-
People ex rel. G.S.S.
...7 When construing a statute, our primary goal is to ascertain and give effect to the legislative intent. See People in Interest of T.A. , 91 P.3d 473, 474 (Colo. App. 2004). "In determining legislative intent, a reviewing court should look to the language of the statute, giving effect to wo......
-
People v. G.S.S., Court of Appeals No. 17CA1678
...7 When construing a statute, our primary goal is to ascertain and give effect to the legislative intent. See People in Interest of T.A., 91 P.3d 473, 474 (Colo. App. 2004). "In determining legislative intent, a reviewing court should look to the language of the statute, giving effect to wor......
-
Olier v. Zupan, Civil Action No. 10-cv-02779-BNB
...alleged violation of defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial where he did not raise the issue at trial); People ex rel. T.A., 91 P.3d 473, 475 (Colo. App. 2004) (declining to consider juvenile's claim that his constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated where juvenile fai......