People v. Varner, No. 25197

Docket NºNo. 25197
Citation508 P.2d 390, 181 Colo. 146
Case DateMarch 26, 1973
CourtSupreme Court of Colorado

Page 390

508 P.2d 390
181 Colo. 146
The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
John Francis VARNER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 25197.
Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.
March 26, 1973.

[181 Colo. 148] Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., John P. Moore, Deputy Atty. Gen., Aurel M. Kelly,

Page 391

David A. Sorenson, Asst. Attys. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.

Rollie R. Rogers, Colorado State Public Defender, J. D. MacFarlane, Chief Deputy State Public Defender, Thomas M. Van Cleave III, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for defendant-appellant.

LEE, Justice.

Defendant appeals from an order revoking his probation. He contends that revocation of his probation was without notice and prior hearing, and therefore violated his constitutional right to due process and equal protection of the law. We affirm the order of the trial court.

On June 20, 1970, defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere to a charge of second-degree burglary and was granted probation for a period of three years. Subsequently, a petition for revocation of his probation was filed on the grounds that defendant had violated his probation, could not be apprehended in the state of Colorado and was presently in the state of Idaho. On February 22, 1971, an order was entered by the trial court forthwith revoking defendant's probation, authorizing the issuance of a warrant for the arrest and return of the defendant to Colorado. Defendant waived extradition and was returned to Colorado. Thereafter, on March 8, 1971, the district court held a hearing on revocation of defendant's probation. Defendant was represented by counsel at that hearing.

The undisputed testimony indicated that, previous to the Idaho violation, on November 25, 1970, defendant had left the state of Colorado without permission from his probation officer and in violation of his probation. Upon his return to Colorado, he was warned that future unauthorized trips would jeopardize his right to remain on probation. Thereafter, on February 10, 1971, the probation officer received a [181 Colo. 149] telephone call from the sheriff's department of Boise, Idaho, informing him that the defendant had been taken into custody in that state and had in his possession illicit drugs. The probation officer then filed the petition for revocation pursuant to which the court order was entered.

The defendant admitted at the hearing that he had gone to Idaho in violation of his probation and had been in possession of the illegal drugs. The court then revoked defendant's probation and sentenced him to the Colorado state penitentiary for a term of not less than three nor more...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • Wilson v. People, No. 86SC29
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • December 14, 1987
    ...were allowed. Cf. Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. at 489, 92 S.Ct. at 2604 (relating to parole revocation proceedings); People v. Varner, 181 Colo. 146, 149, 508 P.2d 390, 391 (1973) (the requirements set out in Morrissey v. Brewer apply equally to the revocation of probation; the probationer......
  • Blake v. United States, No. 73-11-Misc. T.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Florida
    • July 26, 1973
    ...revocations. Although it is arguable that Morrissey should apply with equal force to revocation of probation (see e. g., People v. Varner, 508 P.2d 390, Colorado Supreme Court, 1973), this Court need not decide that issue because petitioner's hearing occurred prior to the Morrissey decision......
  • People v. Ickler, No. 93SC305
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • July 11, 1994
    ...L.Ed.2d 656 (1973); Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 484-89, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 2601-04, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972). See also People v. Varner, 181 Colo. 146, 149-50, 508 P.2d 390, 391-92 (1973). In a revocation proceeding, the People must establish a violation of a condition of probation by a pre......
  • People v. Montague, No. 25274
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • March 26, 1973
    ...of the case. It was the defendant's testimony and the sole thrust of his defense that the prosecuting witness had voluntarily consented[181 Colo. 146] to the act of intercourse and that no force or threats were A properly worded instruction setting forth such a defendant's theory in a case ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • Wilson v. People, No. 86SC29
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • December 14, 1987
    ...were allowed. Cf. Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. at 489, 92 S.Ct. at 2604 (relating to parole revocation proceedings); People v. Varner, 181 Colo. 146, 149, 508 P.2d 390, 391 (1973) (the requirements set out in Morrissey v. Brewer apply equally to the revocation of probation; the probationer......
  • Blake v. United States, No. 73-11-Misc. T.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Florida
    • July 26, 1973
    ...revocations. Although it is arguable that Morrissey should apply with equal force to revocation of probation (see e. g., People v. Varner, 508 P.2d 390, Colorado Supreme Court, 1973), this Court need not decide that issue because petitioner's hearing occurred prior to the Morrissey decision......
  • People v. Ickler, No. 93SC305
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • July 11, 1994
    ...L.Ed.2d 656 (1973); Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 484-89, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 2601-04, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972). See also People v. Varner, 181 Colo. 146, 149-50, 508 P.2d 390, 391-92 (1973). In a revocation proceeding, the People must establish a violation of a condition of probation by a pre......
  • People v. Montague, No. 25274
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • March 26, 1973
    ...of the case. It was the defendant's testimony and the sole thrust of his defense that the prosecuting witness had voluntarily consented[181 Colo. 146] to the act of intercourse and that no force or threats were A properly worded instruction setting forth such a defendant's theory in a case ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT