People v. Fulmer, 26187
| Decision Date | 15 July 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 26187,26187 |
| Citation | 185 Colo. 366,524 P.2d 606 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Calvin Forrest FULMER, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
John P. Moore, Atty. Gen., John E. Bush, Deputy Atty. Gen., James S. Russell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.
Rollie R. Rogers, Colo. State Public Defender, James F. Dumas, Jr., Chief Deputy State Public Defender, Lee Belstock, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for defendant-appellant.
Calvin Forrest Fulmer appeals the denial of his motion for post-conviction review of sentence pursuant to 1971 Perm.Supp., C.R.S. 1963, 40--1--510(1)(f).
Appellant was charged with first-degree murder under C.R.S. 1963, 40--2--3. On November 12, 1968, he entered a plea of guilty to second-degree murder and on December 11, 1968, he was sentenced to serve a term in the state penitentiary of not less than fifty-five nor more than sixty-five years. No appeal was taken from this judgment of conviction.
On July 6, 1972, appellant filed his pro se motion for post-conviction review of his sentence. Thereafter, the public defender filed two additional motions for post-conviction relief. The basis for relief of all three motions was that section 40--3--103 of the Colorado Criminal Code, which became effective July 1, 1972, reclassified second- degree murder as a class two felony and under section 40--1--105 of the code the penalty was reduced to not less than ten nor more than fifty years. After hearing, the trial court denied the motions. We affirm.
This case is controlled by People v. Herrera, Colo., 516 P.2d 626, which declared section 40--1--510(1)(f) to be unconstitutional. Appellant's conviction became final on December 11, 1968. Under Herrera, the trial court was without jurisdiction to grant post-conviction relief from the sentence imposed.
Appellant argues that People v. Herrera, Supra, was decided erroneously. We rejected this argument in People v. Rupert, Colo., 523 P.2d 1406.
Appellant also contends that his sentence is grossly excessive and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. We find no merit to this argument. It is wellsettled that if a sentence is imposed within the statutory limits, and if it does not shock the conscience of the Court, it will not be distrubed by a reviewing court on the grounds that it constitues cruel and unusual punishment. Trujillo v. People. 178 Colo. 136, 496 P.2d 1026; Austin v. Denver, 170 Colo. 448, 462 P.2d 600, cert. denied, 398 U.S. 910, 90 S.Ct. 1703, 26 L.Ed.2d 69; Normand v. People, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Glenn v. Commonwealth
... ... The Fourth Amendment protects "the right of the people to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and ... ...
-
Close v. People
...the "shocks the conscience" standard, which is also referred to as a cruel and unusual standand. See generally People v. Fulmer, 185 Colo. 366, 368, 524 P.2d 606, 607 (Colo. 1974). This standard was the basis of the decision in Kenimer v. State, 59 S.E.2d 296 (Ga. 150), which considered the......
-
People v. Hinchman
...see also People v. Simms, 186 Colo. 447, 528 P.2d 228 (1974); People v. Davis, 186 Colo. 186, 526 P.2d 312 (1974); People v. Fulmer, 185 Colo. 366, 524 P.2d 606 (1974); People v. Johnson, 185 Colo. 285, 523 P.2d 1403 ...
-
People v. Larson, 26961
...not shock the conscience of the court, it will not be disturbed on Eighth Amendment grounds. People v. Thomas, supra; People v. Fulmer, 185 Colo. 366, 524 P.2d 606 (1974). The repetition of criminal conduct justifies a greater penalty for the crime charged. State v. Lee, supra; see also Peo......