People v. Byrum, 89CA0074
| Decision Date | 29 June 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 89CA0074,89CA0074 |
| Citation | 784 P.2d 817 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carroll D. BYRUM, Defendant-Appellee. . A |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Alexander M. Hunter, Dist. Atty., and C. Phillip Miller, Asst. Dist. Atty., Boulder, for plaintiff-appellant.
David F. Vela, Colorado State Public Defender, and Jaydee K. Bachman, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for defendant-appellee.
Opinion by Judge RULAND.
The People appeal the trial court's modification of the defendant's mandatory sentence for violent crime pursuant to § 16-11-309(1)(a), C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 8A). We affirm the modified sentence.
The defendant, Carroll D. Byrum, was convicted of manslaughter and second-degree murder in the shooting deaths of his estranged wife and her male companion in 1985. Pursuant to § 16-11-309(1)(a), the defendant was sentenced to 24 years and one day on the second degree murder conviction, to run concurrently with the five-year sentence he received for the manslaughter conviction. The crime of violence sentence was the minimum available under the version of § 16-11-309(1)(a), then in effect. Cf. § 16-11-309(1)(a), C.R.S. (1988 Cum.Supp.).
The defendant subsequently moved the trial court for reconsideration of the sentence, as authorized in § 16-11-309(1)(a), on the ground that his case was exceptional and involved unusual and extenuating circumstances. Evidence adduced at the hearing, including the diagnostic summary from the Department of Corrections, showed that the defendant's wife had become physically and psychologically abusive towards him after suffering a miscarriage in 1960. This abuse included pointing a loaded gun at him and their two children, beating him, and forcing him to live in a small room in the basement of their home for one and one-half years. Medical evidence showed that the defendant suffered from brain lesions and major depression, manifested by severe mood swings and hyperactivity.
Two weeks after his wife forced him to leave the family home, the defendant decided to commit suicide but thought to attempt a reconciliation with his wife first. When he returned home, the defendant found his wife with another man and shot them both.
The transcript of the modification hearing indicates that the trial court believed both deaths should have resulted in heat-of-passion manslaughter convictions and sentences, but for the fact that the male victim did nothing to provoke the defendant. In addition to the evidence of the defendant's abusive family situation and mental problems, the court considered the fact that the defendant had no previous criminal convictions, that he had been a model prisoner, and that, with regular medical drug treatment, he could lead a normal life. Then, upon a finding of unusual and extenuating circumstances, the trial court reduced the defendant's sentence on the second degree murder conviction to 16 years imprisonment.
The People's primary contentions on appeal are that: (1) the record is insufficient as a matter of law to support findings by the trial court that the defendant's case was exceptional and involved unusual and extenuating circumstances under § 16-11-309(1)(a); (2) the trial court failed to make the findings necessary to support a sentence reduction; and (3) the trial court erred in considering the defendant's conduct as a prisoner in determining whether extenuating circumstances existed.
Initially, we address the defendant's motion to dismiss the appeal. The defendant notes that § 16-12-102(1), C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 8A) limits appeals by the People to questions of law, and, asserting that this appeal involves only questions of fact, he contends it is not sustainable. We deny the motion.
Even if we assume that resolution of the People's first and second contentions concerns only questions of fact, the third argument does not. This argument posits the legal issue of whether the trial court properly considered post-conviction conduct under § 16-11-309(1)(a).
Addressing the appeal on its merits, we...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Borghesi
...sentences below the statutory range, even to include probationary sentences, if the defendant is eligible.14 Id., People v. Byrum, 784 P.2d 817, 818 (Colo.App.1989) (holding that evidence of defendant's mental problems, lack of prior convictions, regular medical treatment, and model prison ......
-
People v. Borghesi, No. 99CA1358.
...modified below the statutory range and may even include a probationary sentence if the defendant is otherwise eligible. People v. Byrum, 784 P.2d 817 (Colo.App.1989). This provision allows the sentencing court great latitude to modify sentences if the circumstances justify it. Therefore, I ......
-
People v. Williams, s. 93CA0124
...crime in the case of exceptional, unusual, and extenuating circumstances. See People v. Wells, 775 P.2d 563 (Colo.1989); People v. Byrum, 784 P.2d 817 (Colo.App.1989). The court may either reduce the sentence on its own initiative following the receipt of information from the Department of ......
-
People v. Beyer, 89CA1546
...sentence previously imposed below the maximum of the presumptive range. See People v. Wells, 775 P.2d 563 (Colo.1989); People v. Byrum, 784 P.2d 817 (Colo.App.1989). Accordingly, the modified sentences are, except for the concurrent term provisions, within the statutory limits of § 16-11-30......