People v. Valdez, 80SA149
| Decision Date | 12 January 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 80SA149,80SA149 |
| Citation | 621 P.2d 332 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David James VALDEZ, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Garrett Sheldon, Deputy Dist. Atty., Walsenburg, for plaintiff-appellant.
Alfredo Magallanes, Pueblo, for defendant-appellee.
The People have brought this interlocutory appeal under C.A.R. 4.1 seeking a review of a ruling by the trial court which suppressed a statement made by the defendant. The defendant is charged with driving in violation of the habitual offender statute, 1 unlawful resistance of arrest, 2 and driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor. 3 We dismiss the appeal.
Effective April 1, 1979, C.A.R. 4.1(a) requires that, where the state files an interlocutory appeal in the supreme court from a ruling of a district court granting a motion to suppress an extra-judicial statement by a defendant, the state must certify to the supreme court that the appeal is not taken "for purposes of delay and the evidence is a substantial part of the proof of the charge pending against the defendant."
Our independent review of the record provided on appeal convinces us that the defendant's statement, which was suppressed under Crim.P. 41(g), does not form a "substantial part" of the proof which may be offered against the defendant. For this reason we refuse to address the substantive issues raised by the People here.
We dismiss the appeal and remand for further proceedings.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Matheny
...4.1(a), but the prosecution's brief and the record do not support this certification. Garner, 736 P.2d at 413; see also People v. Valdez, 621 P.2d 332, 333 (Colo.1981). Here, however, it is clear that the statements suppressed by the district court are a substantial part of the proof agains......
-
People v. Thompson
...(Colo. 1996); People v. Mounts, 801 P.2d 1199, 1202 (Colo. 1990); People v. Garner, 736 P.2d 413, 414 (Colo. 1987); People v. Valdez, 621 P.2d 332, 333 (Colo. 1981). I would overturn those cases.4 Moreover, in thePage 28 vast majority of cases, we use a footnote to briefly acknowledge the p......
-
People v. MacCallum, 96SA124
...proof which may be offered against the defendant. See People v. Mounts, 801 P.2d 1199, 1202, 1203 (Colo.1990); accord People v. Valdez, 621 P.2d 332, 333 (Colo.1981). "[T]he prosecution's brief and the record must support the certification that the statements are a substantial part of the e......
-
People v. Thames
...P.2d 413, 413–14 (Colo.1987) (concluding that the prosecution's brief and the record did not support the certification); People v. Valdez, 621 P.2d 332, 333 (Colo.1981) (concluding from an independent review of the record on appeal that the defendant's suppressed statement did not form a “s......