People v. Janke, No. 90CA0709
| Docket Nº | No. 90CA0709 |
| Citation | 852 P.2d 1271 |
| Case Date | June 04, 1992 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Colorado |
Page 1271
v.
Scott K. JANKE, Defendant-Appellant.
Rehearing Denied July 2, 1992.
Page 1272
Gale A. Norton, Atty. Gen., Raymond T. Slaughter, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Timothy M. Tymkovich, Sol. Gen., Deborah Isenberg Pratt, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.
David F. Vela, Colorado State Public Defender, Samuel Santistevan, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for defendant-appellant.
Opinion by Judge DAVIDSON.
Defendant, Scott Kelly Janke, appeals from the order of the trial court granting the People's motion for reconsideration of its prior order granting defendant's Crim.P. 35(c) motion to set aside his judgment of conviction. We reverse and remand.
In 1983, pursuant to a plea bargain, defendant pled guilty to robbery and received a four-year stipulated sentence. However, he also was sentenced to a mandatory one-year parole term of which he was not advised prior to entry of his plea.
In January 1989, defendant filed a pro se Crim.P. 35(c) motion seeking to vacate the plea. At the hearing on the motion in April 1989, defendant testified that: he entered into the plea agreement because of the four-year stipulated sentence; he would not have pled guilty if he had been informed that he was subject to one year of mandatory parole; although he had completed the four-year sentence, he had not
Page 1273
been placed on parole; and the mandatory parole provision had affected his classification and his eligibility for programs and facilities within the Department of Corrections. The prosecution called no witnesses and presented no evidence to rebut his contentions.The trial court found that the failure of the court at the providency hearing to advise defendant of the mandatory parole period rendered the plea invalid and that the defendant had suffered substantial prejudice as a result of the parole portion of his sentence. The court then vacated the guilty plea, set aside the judgment, accepted defendant's plea of not guilty, and set a new trial.
The People did not appeal from the trial court's order, but, in June 1989, beyond the period for timely appeal, they filed a motion to reconsider the court's order granting defendant's motion to vacate the plea. They argued, inter alia, that People v. Tyus, 776 P.2d 1143 (Colo.App.1989), which had been announced one week after the court's order vacating the guilty plea, clarified the law as to what providency hearing advisements are necessary concerning mandatory parole terms.
The trial court agreed to rehear the matter. At the hearing, the People presented evidence that defendant had not been prejudiced within the Department of Corrections as a result of the imposition of the mandatory parole.
Upon reconsideration, the trial court ruled that, even though defendant had not been properly advised, he had suffered no adverse consequences attendant to receiving mandatory parole and, thus, the guilty plea was valid. It then reinstated the 1983 judgment of conviction and vacated the trial date.
On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in reconsidering the order to vacate the plea after the People did not timely appeal the ruling. Although we disagree with defendant's reasoning, we agree that the trial court was barred from reviewing its April 1989 order.
First, we do not agree with defendant's assertion that the doctrine of collateral estoppel is applicable. As pertinent here, collateral estoppel bars...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. Samora, Court of Appeals No. 15CA1136
...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, reconsideration of the original ruling under the law of the case......
-
People v. Heredia, No. 04CA0115.
...had exceeded its jurisdiction when it modified the defendant's otherwise valid sentence. Mortensen, supra; see also People v. Janke, 852 P.2d 1271 (Colo.App.1992)(where trial court's order granting defendant's Crim. P. 35(c) motion became final, it did not retain jurisdiction to reconsider ......
-
People v. Martinez, Court of Appeals No. 13CA0967
...Procedure and 350 P.3d 993to the applicable law if no Rule of Criminal Procedure exists.” Id . (emphasis added); see People v. Janke, 852 P.2d 1271, 1274 (Colo. App. 1992). Divisions of this court have recognized only two civil rules that, by analogy, may provide legal authority permitting ......
-
People v. Thomas, No. 08CA0669.
...When defendant did not do so, the order became final on that date. People v. Ovalle, 51 P.3d 1073, 1075 (Colo.App.2002); People v. Janke, 852 P.2d 1271, 1273 (Colo.App.1992)(order ruling on Crim. P. 35(c) motion becomes final after the period in which to perfect an appeal expires). Therefor......
-
Jones v. Samora, Court of Appeals No. 15CA1136
...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, reconsideration of the original ruling under the law of the case......
-
People v. Heredia, 04CA0115.
...had exceeded its jurisdiction when it modified the defendant's otherwise valid sentence. Mortensen, supra; see also People v. Janke, 852 P.2d 1271 (Colo.App.1992)(where trial court's order granting defendant's Crim. P. 35(c) motion became final, it did not retain jurisdiction to reconsider ......
-
People v. Martinez, Court of Appeals No. 13CA0967
...Procedure and 350 P.3d 993to the applicable law if no Rule of Criminal Procedure exists.” Id . (emphasis added); see People v. Janke, 852 P.2d 1271, 1274 (Colo. App. 1992). Divisions of this court have recognized only two civil rules that, by analogy, may provide legal authority permitting ......
-
People v. Albaugh, 96CA1128
...Cavanaugh v. State, 644 P.2d 1 (Colo.1982) (judgment becomes final after period in which to perfect an appeal expires); People v. Janke, 852 P.2d 1271 (Colo.App.1992) (trial court order regarding Crim. P. 35(c) motion is final after period for appeal Here, the prosecution filed the motion f......