People v. Marquez, 85CA1068
Decision Date | 14 May 1987 |
Docket Number | No. 85CA1068,85CA1068 |
Citation | 739 P.2d 917 |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wilfred Delano MARQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant. . IV |
Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Duane Woodard, Atty. Gen., Charles B. Howe, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Richard H. Forman, Sol. Gen., Peter J. Stapp and Timothy E. Nelson, Asst. Attys. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.
David F. Vela, Colorado State Public Defender, and Douglas D. Barnes, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for defendant-appellant.
*
Defendant, Wilfred Delano Marquez, appeals the denial of his motion under Crim.P. 35(c) to set aside his conviction. He contends his right to speedy trial pursuant to § 16-4-103(2) C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 8A) was violated and that he did not receive effective assistance of counsel. We affirm.
In January 1982, defendant was convicted by a jury of two counts of aggravated robbery, one count of second degree assault, and one habitual criminal count. His conviction was affirmed on appeal. People v. Marquez, 692 P.2d 1089 (Colo.1984).
In a Crim.P. 35(c) motion, defendant thereafter sought post-conviction relief alleging his speedy trial right under § 16-4-103(2) C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 8A) was violated because he was not brought to trial within ninety days of the revocation of his bond. He also maintained that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to move for dismissal of the charges on those grounds prior to trial. The trial court's order denying this motion is the subject of this appeal by the defendant.
On August 22, 1980, defendant was arraigned and entered a plea of not guilty. After posting bail bond, defendant sought and received three continuances of his trial date, the last being granted on January 30, 1981. At a motion hearing on May 26, 1981, defense counsel advised the court that his client was incarcerated in New Mexico on a federal criminal charge.
When the defendant failed to appear for his scheduled trial date on June 1, 1981, the trial court entered an order revoking the defendant's bond. The trial court deemed defendant's failure to appear for trial to be a waiver of his right to speedy trial, and continued the case until such time as the defendant's presence could be obtained.
On October 16, 1981, defendant was returned to the jurisdiction pursuant to the trial court's bench warrant. Shortly thereafter, the trial was rescheduled for, and was conducted beginning January 25, 1982.
Section 16-4-103(2), C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 8A) provides in pertinent part:
The defendant asserts that because the trial court revoked his bond on June 1, 1981, and he was not tried until January 25, 1982, the ninety-day speedy trial requirement of this section was violated.
We hold that § 16-4-103(2) does not apply here. When the trial court revoked the defendant's bond, it did not expressly enter an order under the statute, nor did it make a finding that the defendant had committed a class 1, 2, 3, or 4 felony as classified under Colorado law. See People v. Gray, 710 P.2d 1149 (Colo.App.1985). The bond revocation resulted from the defendant's failure to appear for trial, not because he had committed a felony while on bond. Furthermore we note that defendant was charged in New Mexico with being a felon in possession of a firearm, which if committed in Colorado in violation of § 18-12-108, C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 8B) would have been a class 5 felony.
The defendant was unavailable because trial on the federal charge in New Mexico was set for the end of June 1981, and the defendant was unable to make the $100,000 bond in the federal case. The trial court properly concluded that defendant's failure to appear for trial on the Colorado charges could only be attributed to the defendant and, therefore, constituted a waiver of his right to speedy trial.
Defendant's right to speedy trial in this case is governed by § 18-1-405, C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 8B) and Crim.P. 48(b), which generally require that an accused be brought to trial within six months of the entry of a plea of not guilty. The statute and rule provide certain exclusions from the six month general rule, including periods of delay resulting from the unavailability of the defendant. Section 18-1-405(6)(d), C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 8B); Crim.P. 48(b)(6)(IV).
Here, the exclusion serves to toll the six-month period while the defendant was being processed in the federal system. Furthermore, a reasonable period of time may be allowed for rescheduling of defendant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Jones
...a felony while free on bond). ¶ 47 The divisions in People v. Coleman, 844 P.2d 1215, 1221 (Colo.App.1992), People v. Marquez, 739 P.2d 917, 918–19 (Colo.App.1987), and People v. Avery, 736 P.2d 1233, 1235–36 (Colo.App.1986), reached similar results. Marquez and Coleman are particularly ins......
-
People v. Jones
...committed a felony while free on bond).¶ 47 The divisions in People v. Coleman, 844 P.2d 1215, 1221 (Colo.App.1992), People v. Marquez, 739 P.2d 917, 918–19 (Colo.App.1987), and People v. Avery, 736 P.2d 1233, 1235–36 (Colo.App.1986), reached similar results. Marquez and Coleman are particu......
-
PEOPLE EX REL. JMN, No. 00CA2317.
...began, as required by § 18-1-405(5), he waived his speedy trial rights under the sixty-day rule of § 19-2-708(1). See People v. Marquez, 739 P.2d 917 (Colo.App.1987)(defendant waived his speedy trial rights because he failed to demand dismissal prior to II. J.M.N. next argues that the trial......
-
Chapter 3 - § 3.2 • WAIVER OF THE STATUTORY SPEEDY TRIAL TIME PERIOD
...contradictory result in a case in which the efforts to secure the presence of the defendant are not disclosed, People v. Marquez, 739 P.2d 917 (Colo. App. 1987), held that the speedy trial statute tolled during the time the defendant was unavailable because he was being processed through th......
-
The Ins and Outs, Stops and Starts of Speedy Trial Rights in Colorado-part I
...19. 21. Scott, supra, note 19. 22. Slender Wrap, Inc., supra, note 5. 23. People v. Deason, 670 P.2d 792 (Colo. 1983); People v. Marquez, 739 P.2d 917 (Colo.App. 1987). 24. Corsentino, supra, note 9 at 1362. 25. People v. Peltz, 697 P.2d 766 (Colo.App. 1984) (no violation of defendant's sta......