People v. Gurule, 82CA1405
| Decision Date | 15 November 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 82CA1405,82CA1405 |
| Citation | 699 P.2d 9 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mark Randall GURULE, Defendant-Appellant. . I |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Duane Woodard, Atty. Gen., Charles B. Howe, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Richard H. Forman, Sol. Gen., Maureen Phelan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.
David Vela, State Public Defender, Claire Levy, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for defendant-appellant.
The defendant, Mark Randall Gurule, appeals from the judgment of conviction entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of felony murder. We affirm.
In a previous appeal of this matter, the defendant's convictions for extreme indifference murder in the first degree, attempt to commit first degree murder after deliberation, and aggravated robbery were reversed, and the cause was remanded for a new trial on the charges of felony murder, attempt to commit first degree murder after deliberation, and aggravated robbery. See People v. Gurule, 628 P.2d 99 (Colo.1981) appealing after remand 196 Colo. 562, 593 P.2d 319 (1978). In reversing the conviction for extreme indifference murder, the court stated:
In a petition for rehearing the defendant challenged the remand order on the basis that a retrial on the felony murder charge would violate the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. That petition was denied. Thereafter, the defendant filed a motion in the trial court to dismiss the felony murder charge on the same grounds alleged in his petition for rehearing. That motion was also denied.
Defendant's sole contention is that his retrial on the felony murder charge violated his constitutional protection against double jeopardy. See U.S. Const. amend. V; Colo. Const. art. II, § 18.
Defendant recognizes that, under the doctrine of the law of the case, a decision on an issue of law made at one stage of the case becomes binding precedent to be followed in successive stages of the same litigation, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Wise
...that we follow the supreme court's mandate. See In re Marriage of Balanson, 107 P.3d 1037, 1043 (Colo.App.2004) ; People v. Gurule, 699 P.2d 9, 10 (Colo.App.1984) ; see also Briggs v. Penn. R.R. Co., 334 U.S. 304, 306, 68 S.Ct. 1039, 92 L.Ed. 1403 (1948) (a lower court “has no power or auth......
-
Jones v. Samora
...state law claims, that proceeding ended; that is, there were no more "successive stages of the same litigation[.]" People v. Gurule , 699 P.2d 9, 10 (Colo. App. 1984) ; see People v. Janke , 852 P.2d 1271, 1274 (Colo. App. 1992) ("[B]ecause we are concerned here with a final order, reconsid......
-
Howard v. Wood Bros. Homes, Inc.
...of law made at one stage of the case becomes binding precedent to be followed in successive stages of the same litigation. People v. Gurule, 699 P.2d 9 (Colo.App.1984). Our holding in the first appeal that the controlling statute of limitations was the predecessor statute addressed the same......