People v. Radar, 81CA0325
| Decision Date | 29 April 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 81CA0325,81CA0325 |
| Citation | 652 P.2d 1085 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tracy RADAR, Defendant-Appellant. . I |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
J.D. MacFarlane, Atty. Gen., Richard F. Hennessey, Deputy Atty. Gen., Mary J. Mullarkey, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert C. Lehnert, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.
J. Gregory Walta, Colorado State Public Defender, Susan L. Fralick, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for defendant-appellant.
The trial court revoked the probation of defendant and sentenced him to a term of imprisonment. On appeal, defendant complains that, in doing so, the trial court failed to credit him with time spent at a community corrections halfway house under presentence confinement. We affirm.
In 1980, defendant entered a plea of guilty to a charge of second degree burglary, and the trial court sentenced him to five years probation. As a condition of probation, defendant was to enter a halfway house. Eventually, a motion to revoke probation was filed and defendant thereafter admitted the allegations therein.
The trial court accepted the defendant's admissions, ordered the probation revoked, and sentenced defendant to the custody of the Department of Corrections for a term of four years. One hundred and sixty-two days credit was granted for presentence confinement.
Defendant's sole contention is that the trial court erred by failing to credit his sentence following revocation of probation with an additional 90 days he had spent at a community corrections halfway house as a condition of probation pursuant to § 16-11-204(2)(c), C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl. Vol. 8). We do not agree.
Section 16-11-306, C.R.S.1973 (1981 Cum.Supp.), states in pertinent part:
(emphasis supplied)
Under this section, the trial court is without discretion to grant or deny defendant credit against his sentence for presentence confinement. People v. Dempsey, Colo.App., 624 P.2d 374 (1981). Rather, the trial court is to make findings of fact only as to the number of days defendant spent in presentence confinement. Dempsey, supra. No credit, however, is to be given for probation. See People v. Ledford, 173 Colo. 194, 477 P.2d 374 (1970).
In People ex rel. VanMeveren v. District Court, 195 Colo. 34, 575 P.2d 4 (1978), our Supreme Court noted that community corrections programs provide the trial court "with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maus v. State
...under analogous circumstances, several courts have reached results that are in accord with State v. Reyes, supra. See People v. Radar, 652 P.2d 1085, 1086-1087 (Colo.1982) (no credit awarded under statute granting credit for time spent in "confinement" where defendant spent time at a halfwa......
-
Beecroft v. People
...not be credited against the new sentence. See Gehl v. People, 161 Colo. 535, 538, 423 P.2d 332, 334 (1967); see also People v. Radar, 652 P.2d 1085, 1086-87 (Colo.App.1982) (holding that an offender is not entitled to presentence-confinement credit for time served in community corrections a......
-
People v. Whiteside
...given for time spent in a residential drug treatment facility because the participants were free to leave at any time); People v. Radar, 652 P.2d 1085 (Colo., 1982) (no credit awarded for time spent in a half-way house).22 Attention is called to the prosecutor's concession in the brief file......
-
Schubert v. People
...with work release program entitles offender only to credit for actual time confined in county jail and not time at work); People v. Radar, 652 P.2d 1085 (Colo.App.1982) (residency in community corrections facility as condition of probation is not presentence confinement).10 Minor amendments......