Ray v. People, 21677

Docket NºNo. 21677
Citation415 P.2d 328, 160 Colo. 173
Case DateJune 13, 1966
CourtSupreme Court of Colorado

Page 328

415 P.2d 328
160 Colo. 173
Kenneth Melvin RAY, Plaintiff in Error,
v.
The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Defendant in Error.
No. 21677.
Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.
June 13, 1966.

[160 Colo. 174] H. D. Reed, John A. Kintzele, Denver, for plaintiff in error.

Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., George E. DeRoos, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for defendant in error.

DAY, Justice.

This writ of error is directed to the order of the district court denying a motion filed pursuant to Rule 35(b), Colo.R.Crim.P. by plaintiff in error, hereinafter called the defendant. In his motion defendant attacks the validity of a sentence of one year to life imposed by the court under C.R.S. '53, 39--19--1 et seq. (prior to a 1963 amendment) commonly known as the 'Sex Offenders Act.' He would have us order the trial court to vacate and set aside the sentence and to sentence him according to the penalty provided by statute for the crime to which he entered a plea of guilty. For reasons which we will hereinafter enumerate, we hold that the trial court was correct and that the sentence was valid.

Defendant was originally charged by information with statutory rape and conspiracy to commit statutory rape. Later the information was amended by addition of other counts of forcible rape and conspiracy to commit forcible rape. Defendant first entered pleas of not guilty to all of these counts. Subsequently, by leave of court, he changed his plea to guilty with reference to the offense[160 Colo. 175] of statutory rape. He then made application for probation.

At the hearing on the probation application, it was determined, on the recommendation

Page 329

of the Probation Department, that probation should not be granted. Thereafter, in colloquy between the court and counsel, it became apparent that the court was disposed to sentence the defendant to the penitentiary. Whereupon counsel requested that the 'defendant be sent to the hospital for a period of observation before the Court pronounces final sentence.' The court responded, 'All right. Before sentence is passed, then, we will remand him to the Sheriff and we will order him committed to the Colorado Psychopathic Hospital for examination, for observation, examination, and report, before sentence is passed.'

In due time, after the conclusion of the examination requested by the court, a psychiatrist made a report which, Inter alia, made findings as to the nature of the defendant's psychological condition and expressed the view that he suffered from 'severe character disorder, with strong tendencies toward impulsive, sadistic acting out.' The psychiatrist then concluded:

'It is extremely unlikely that Mr. Ray could benefit from psychotherapy unless it was conducted over a prolonged period of time in an institutional setting where he would have no opportunity for acting out. We...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • People v. White, 80SA348
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • 10 Gennaio 1983
    ...693 119 (1977); People v. Lyons, 185 Colo. 112, 521 P.2d 1265 (1974); Jordan v. People, 161 Colo. 54, 419 P.2d 656 (1966); Ray v. People, 160 Colo. 173, 415 P.2d 328 (1966); Raullerson v. People, 157 Colo. 462, 404 P.2d 149 (1965); People v. Ingram, 40 Colo.App. 518, 582 P.2d 689 The defend......
  • Jordan v. People, 21479
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • 31 Ottobre 1966
    ...of C.R.S. 1963, 39--19--2 before sentencing. We find no abuse of discretion in the sentencing procedure. Ray v. People, Colo., 415 P.2d 328; Specht v. People, 156 Colo. 12, 396 P.2d 838; Trueblood v. Tinsley, 148 Colo. 503, 366 P.2d The judgment is affirmed. ...
  • Sala v. Hay, 22006
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • 13 Giugno 1966
    ...the money was not available to her. The trial court erroneously held she could. Clauses in contracts of the kind in question here imply [160 Colo. 173] a promise that the purchaser will make reasonable efforts to secure the loan upon reasonable terms and conditions. Lach v. Cahill, 138 Conn......
3 cases
  • People v. White, 80SA348
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • 10 Gennaio 1983
    ...693 119 (1977); People v. Lyons, 185 Colo. 112, 521 P.2d 1265 (1974); Jordan v. People, 161 Colo. 54, 419 P.2d 656 (1966); Ray v. People, 160 Colo. 173, 415 P.2d 328 (1966); Raullerson v. People, 157 Colo. 462, 404 P.2d 149 (1965); People v. Ingram, 40 Colo.App. 518, 582 P.2d 689 The defend......
  • Jordan v. People, 21479
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • 31 Ottobre 1966
    ...of C.R.S. 1963, 39--19--2 before sentencing. We find no abuse of discretion in the sentencing procedure. Ray v. People, Colo., 415 P.2d 328; Specht v. People, 156 Colo. 12, 396 P.2d 838; Trueblood v. Tinsley, 148 Colo. 503, 366 P.2d The judgment is affirmed. ...
  • Sala v. Hay, 22006
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • 13 Giugno 1966
    ...the money was not available to her. The trial court erroneously held she could. Clauses in contracts of the kind in question here imply [160 Colo. 173] a promise that the purchaser will make reasonable efforts to secure the loan upon reasonable terms and conditions. Lach v. Cahill, 138 Conn......

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