People v. Lopez, 97CA0227
| Decision Date | 25 June 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 97CA0227,97CA0227 |
| Citation | 961 P.2d 602 |
| Parties | 98 CJ C.A.R. 3427 The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Randy Dominic LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant. . II |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Gale A. Norton, Attorney General, Martha Phillips Allbright, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Richard A. Westfall, Solicitor General, Roger G. Billotte, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, for Plaintiff-Appellee,
David F. Vela, Colorado State Public Defender, Ann M. Roan, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for Defendant-Appellant.
Opinion by Judge NEY.
Defendant, Randy Dominic Lopez, appeals the trial court's denial of his motion for credit for time served. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Following a guilty plea to second degree burglary, defendant was sentenced to ten years in the Department of Corrections (DOC) and was awarded 152 days of presentence confinement credit.
Upon reconsideration, defendant's DOC sentence was modified to ten years in a community corrections program. That placement, however, was subsequently terminated and defendant was resentenced to ten years in DOC, nunc pro tunc to his original sentencing date. The new mittimus reflected 184 days of presentence confinement credit, which presumably includes the 152 days defendant was originally awarded plus 32 days for his reincarceration following his termination from community corrections.
Thereafter, defendant filed a motion requesting that a new mittimus be issued reflecting an additional one year of credit for time served as a resident in community corrections, as well as one year of good time credit. The trial court denied the motion without a hearing, finding that, because defendant's new sentence was entered nunc pro tunc to the original sentencing date, he had been given "full credit for time served."
The People concede that the trial court's nunc pro tunc characterization of the sentence does not satisfy the statutory requirements of a mittimus. See Beecroft v. People, 874 P.2d 1041 (Colo.1994); § 16-11-306, C.R.S.1997. We conclude that the trial court erred by failing to include in the new mittimus the actual date that the sentence commenced, credit for time defendant served as a resident in community corrections, as well as information concerning other credits for which defendant may have been eligible. A remand is, therefore, required.
An offender who is resentenced to DOC, after initially being sentenced to a community corrections program, is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Pimble
...A defendant so resentenced is entitled to PSCC for any time served in a residential community corrections facility. People v. Lopez, 961 P.2d 602, 603 (Colo.App.1998). Section 18–1.3–405, C.R.S.2014, provides that "[a] person who is confined for an offense prior to the imposition of sentenc......