People v. Rogers, No. 99SC438.
| Decision Date | 11 September 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 99SC438. |
| Citation | 9 P.3d 371 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Petitioner, v. Robert R. ROGERS, Respondent. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Ken Salazar, Attorney General, Lauren A. Edelstein, Assistant Attorney General, Appellate Division, Denver, Colorado, Attorneys for Petitioner.
Robert R. Rogers, pro se, Canon City, Colorado.
We granted certiorari to review whether the court of appeals correctly held that Robert R. Rogers (Rogers) had not received the "administrative review process" due upon a rejection after acceptance from a community corrections program.1 See People v. Rogers, 983 P.2d 121 (Colo.App.1999). We reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand with directions to reinstate the trial court's order denying Crim. P. 35(c) relief.
On July 20, 1994, the trial court sentenced Rogers to four years in community corrections for possession of a controlled substance, see §§ 18-18-204, -405, 6 C.R.S. (1999), to run concurrently with a three-year community corrections sentence for forgery that was imposed on a conviction in Boulder County. Rogers completed the residential program on June 12, 1995, and was then transferred to the non-residential program. The following year, the community corrections program rejected his placement based on a urinalysis that was positive for cocaine and other rule infractions. On April 29, 1996, the trial court revoked Rogers's community corrections sentence and re-sentenced him to the Department of Corrections.
The court of appeals held that the record in this case failed to establish compliance by the community corrections program with statutory termination procedures, and reversed and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. See Rogers, 983 P.2d at 123.
Subsequently, we issued our opinion in Benz v. People, 5 P.3d 311 (Colo.2000). We held that section 17-27-103(7), 6 C.R.S. (1999), authorizes the trial court as the referring agency to conduct the informal administrative review anticipated by the statute, if the community corrections program does not. See Benz, 5 P.3d at 316 (Colo.2000). We defined the type of review that the trial court may conduct, including the court's statutory authority to require a community corrections board or program to provide the facts forming the basis of the program's decision to terminate the community corrections placement. See id. at 316-17.
The record here demonstrates that the trial court undertook the informal administrative review provided by the community corrections statute. The documents submitted to the trial court included a letter from the community corrections program, signed by the Non-Residential Case Manager and the Executive Director of Programs, describing the infractions that formed the basis for the rejection of Rogers. The causes of termination included the cocaine positive urinalysis, driving without a license, receipt of a speeding ticket, and failure...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
NAH v. SLS, 99SC90.
... ... other presumptions of paternity in section 19-4-105 by clear and convincing evidence); People in the Interest of M.P.R., 723 P.2d 743, 745-46 (Colo.App.1986) (finding no genuine issue of ... ...
-
People v. Kitsmiller
...documentation in the record regarding the rejection. See Benz v. People, supra (trial court reviewed facts on the record); People v. Rogers, 9 P.3d 371 (Colo.2000)(documents supporting rejection in trial court record). No substantive evaluation of the veracity of the facts or the merits of ......
-
People v. Pauley, 00CA0185.
...termination from community corrections, cf. Benz v. People, supra, 5 P.3d at 313 (deceptive polygraph results); People v. Rogers, 9 P.3d 371, 373 (Colo.2000) (drug use, driving without a license, receipt of a speeding ticket, and failure to obey a community corrections program order), and t......