People v. Galves
| Decision Date | 07 August 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 96CA1560,96CA1560 |
| Citation | 955 P.2d 582 |
| Parties | 97 CJ C.A.R. 1469 The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth T. GALVES, Defendant-Appellant. . I |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Gale A. Norton, Attorney General, Stephen K. ErkenBrack, Chief Deputy Attorney
General, Timothy M. Tymkovich, Solicitor General, Clemmie P. Engle, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Denver, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
David F. Vela, State Public Defender, Karen M. Gerash, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for Defendant-Appellant.
Opinion by Judge METZGER.
Defendant, Kenneth T. Galves, appeals from the trial court's order which determined that it lacked jurisdiction to consider his motion for return of seized property. We affirm.
Following a finding by the trial court that he was not guilty by reason of insanity of the crimes charged in this case, defendant was committed to the custody of the Department of Institutions. He later filed a motion for the return of personal property seized as a result of his arrest.
Following a hearing, the trial court denied the motion. Although acknowledging its continued jurisdiction over treatment and release issues, the court concluded that its jurisdiction did not extend to the issue of return of property and indicated that defendant could seek return of his property by filing a civil action.
Defendant contends the court erred in refusing to consider his motion on the basis of lack of jurisdiction. He concedes that a trial court loses jurisdiction to consider issues raised after sentence has been imposed, other than those asserted pursuant to Crim. P. 35. However, he argues, in the case of a defendant found not guilty by reason of insanity, there is no conviction and sentence. He maintains, therefore, that the trial court continues to have jurisdiction over matters raised after the defendant is committed. We find no error.
In a criminal case, a trial court loses jurisdiction over the matter upon the entry of final judgment. A final judgment includes, among other things, entry of a judgment of conviction and imposition of sentence. Following the entry of a final judgment, the court retains subject matter jurisdiction only over matters that may be raised pursuant to Crim. P. 35. People v. Campbell, 738 P.2d 1179 (Colo.1987).
We agree with the defendant that a judgment consisting of an adjudication of not guilty by reason of insanity and commitment to the Department of Institutions is not technically a judgment of conviction and imposition of sentence. However, it ends the controversy and, therefore, is the functional equivalent of a judgment of conviction and imposition of sentence.
A plea of not guilty by reason of insanity is a plea on the merits. It challenges the mental element of the offense charged, which is an essential element of guilt.
Insanity at the time of the commission of the offense is not a mitigating factor, but is a complete defense to a criminal charge. Parks v. Denver District Court, 180 Colo. 202, 503 P.2d 1029 (1972). A verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity, therefore, is an adjudication on the merits which absolves the defendant of criminal responsibility forever....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Hargrave, 06CA0212.
...(trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider a motion to return property following the entry of a valid sentence); and People v. Galves, 955 P.2d 582, 583 (Colo.App.1997) (trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider a motion for return of property after committing defendant to a psychiatric......
-
People v. C.Y.
...¶ 28 A finding that a defendant is not guilty by reason of insanity is a “final adjudication on the merits.” People v. Galves, 955 P.2d 582, 583–84 (Colo.App.1997); see also Jacobs v. Carmel, 869 P.2d 211, 214–15 (Colo.1994). Thus, by analogy, a finding that a juvenile cannot be restored to......
-
People v. Laeke
...waiver of the right to a jury trial must be accompanied by a knowing, voluntary, and intentional waiver). Relying upon People v. Galves, 955 P.2d 582, 583 (Colo.App.1997), the People also assert that a determination of insanity is a “complete defense to a criminal charge,” and a “verdict of......
-
People v. Laeke, Court of Appeals No. 08CA0079 (Colo. App. 11/25/2009)
...of the right to a jury trial must be accompanied by a knowing, voluntary, and intentional waiver). Relying upon People v. Galves, 955 P.2d 582, 583 (Colo. App. 1997), the People also assert that a determination of insanity is a "complete defense to a criminal charge," and a "verdict of [NGR......