People v. Wilson, 84CA1268

• Decision Date: 29 November 1985
• Docket Number: No. 84CA1268,84CA1268
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vincent A. WILSON, Defendant-Appellant. . I
• Court: Colorado Court of Appeals

Page 982

717 P.2d 982

The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vincent A. WILSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 84CA1268.

Colorado Court of Appeals,

Div. I.

Nov. 29, 1985.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 26, 1985.

Certiorari Granted (Wilson) April 14, 1986.

Duane Woodard, Atty. Gen., Charles B. Howe, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Richard H. Forman, Sol. Gen., Cynthia D. Jones, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.

David F. Vela, State Public Defender, Douglas D. Barnes, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for defendant-appellant.

ENOCH, Chief Judge.

Defendant, Vincent A. Wilson, appeals the trial court's order revoking his sentence to placement in a community corrections facility. We affirm.

Defendant pled guilty to second degree burglary. The court denied Wilson's request for probation and, after a hearing, sentenced him to placement in a community corrections facility for two years plus one year of parole. The court designated the probation department as the supervising authority. Several months after imposition of sentence, defendant failed to return to the facility, in violation of the conditions of his placement. Subsequently, he was apprehended and confined in the county jail. A hearing was then held before the court with defendant, his counsel, and the district attorney present. Relying on a report filed by defendant's probation officer which stated that defendant had not returned to the facility or contacted the officer or community corrections' staff, the court revoked his sentence to community corrections and resentenced him to the department of corrections for two years plus one year parole. The order gave defendant credit for the time he served in community corrections.

Defendant's specific argument on appeal is that the trial court, by not affording him an opportunity to be heard, to present evidence, and to cross-examine witnesses concerning the revocation of his sentence to community corrections, violated his right to due process. He argues that placement in a community corrections facility involves a substantial, if conditional, liberty interest within the protection of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and, therefore, revocation of that placement requires at least an informal hearing. Defendant does not raise any particular objections to the resentencing aspect of the proceeding.

Neither statutory law nor the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires a court to afford defendant a hearing before his sentence to a community corrections facility is revoked. Section 17-27-103(3), C.R.S....