People v. Trujillo, 24869
| Citation | 178 Colo. 147,497 P.2d 1 |
| Decision Date | 17 April 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 24869,24869 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Samuel Joseph TRUJILLO, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., John P. Moore, Deputy Atty. Gen., Tennyson W. Grebenar, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.
Rollie R. Rogers, Colorado State Public Defender, J. D. MacFarlane, Chief Deputy State Public Defender, T. Michael Dutton, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for defendant-appellant.
The trial court's denial of a motion by Samuel Joseph Trujillo to vacate a sentence under the provisions of Crim.P. 35(b) has been appealed to this Court. The appellant seeks relief from a sentence which was imposed upon him after he plead guilty to an information charging a violation of C.R.S. 1963, 40--11--10. He asserts that he is entitled to have the sentence vacated because the statute, which provides felony penalties for the carrying of certain concealed weapons by those who have committed eleven specified crimes, violates the requirements of Article II, Section 25 of the Colorado Constitution and the equal protection provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. He argues that the statute, by prohibiting certain felons, but not all felons, from carrying specified concealed weapons is unreasonable and arbitrary.
The sole question before us is whether C.R.S. 1963, 40--11--10 constitutes unreasonable class legislation as it is applied to the defendant. The statute provides:
The appellant's conviction under the statute was premised on the fact that he was discovered carrying a pistol concealed on his person and that on two previous occasions he had been convicted of the crime of burglary.
It is well established that all reasonable intendments must be indulged to support the constitutionality of legislative acts, including classifications adopted by lawmakers. Their groupings will not be disturbed unless the classification is clearly arbitrary and without any reasonable basis. In determining whether a legislative act denies equal protection of the law to a certain class, we have stated:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Swint
...in the interest of the public health, safety, and welfare and within the scope of the Legislature's police power.' People v. Trujillo, 178 Colo. 147, 497 P.2d 1 [1978]. "To be sure, the state legislature cannot, in the name of the police power, enact laws which render nugatory our Bill of R......
-
Carfield v. State
...interest of the public health, safety, and welfare and within the scope of the Legislature's police power. * * * " People v. Trujillo, 178 Colo. 147, 497 P.2d 1, 2-3 (1972). The appellant's contention with respect to judicial legislation is closely related to his attack upon the statute for......
-
People v. District Court, City and County of Denver
...past conduct, have demonstrated an unfitness to be entrusted with such dangerous instrumentalities" (quoting People v. Trujillo, 178 Colo. 147, 150, 497 P.2d 1, 2-3 (1972))). Accordingly, we hold that, in a trial solely involving a POWPO violation, the fact that the jury will hear evidence ......
-
People v. Blue
...in the interest of the public health, safety, and welfare and within the scope of the Legislature's police power.' People v. Trujillo, 178 Colo. 147, 497 P.2d 1. See also People v. Trujillo, 184 Colo. 387, 524 P.2d 1379. To be sure, the state legislature cannot, in the name of the police po......
-
Section 25 DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
...Vogts v. Guerrette, 142 Colo. 527, 351 P.2d 851 (1960); Vanderhoof v. People, 152 Colo. 147, 380 P.2d 903 (1963); People v. Trujillo, 178 Colo. 147, 497 P.2d 1 (1972). A state may classify with reference to the evil to be prevented, and if the class discriminated against is or reasonably mi......