Specht v. Tinsley, No. 20703
| Docket Nº | No. 20703 |
| Citation | 153 Colo. 235, 385 P.2d 423 |
| Case Date | September 30, 1963 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Colorado |
Page 423
v.
Harry C. TINSLEY, Warden of the Colorado State Penitentiary,
Defendant in Error.
Francis Eddie Specht, pro se.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., John E. Bush, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for defendant in error.
Page 424
[153 Colo. 236] McWILLIAMS, Justice.
In his petition for a writ of habeas corpus Specht alleged that he was being 'illegally and unlawfully detained by respondent [Tinsley] at the Colorado State Penitentiary * * * in violation of his rights pursuant to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Colorado' and sought issuance of the writ on the following grounds:
1. That though convicted of the crime of indecent liberties as defined in C.R.S. '53, 40-2-32, he was thereafter improperly and unlawfully sentenced under C.R.S. '53, 39-19-1, et seq. to a term of not less than one day or more than life in the state penitentiary, rather than being sentenced pursuant to the statute under which he was convicted, viz. C.R.S. '53, 40-2-32, which states that the 'felonious assaulter' if over eighteen shall be confined in the penitentiary for a term of not more than ten years:
2. That even under C.R.S. '53, 39-19-1, et seq. the trial court was without jurisdiction to sentence him because of its alleged failure to 'arraign' him as required by C.R.S. '53, 39-19-5 (1960 Perm.Supp.);
3. That the sentence imposed is 'outside the statutory limits', inasmuch as C.R.S. '53, 39-19-1, et seq. is itself unconstitutional in that it violates:
a. The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article II section 20 of the Colorado Constitution, each of which prohibits 'cruel and unusual punishment';
b. Article III of the Colorado Constitution which prohibits the legislature from delegating a legislative power to the judiciary, and the judiciary in turn from thereafter delegating the judicial power to fix and determine a sentence to the executive department, i. e. the Parole Board; and
c. The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth [153 Colo. 237] Amendment to the United States Constitution and the due process clause of the Colorado Constitution, i. e. Article II, section 26.
At the outset it should be noted that C.R.S. '53, 65-1-1 provides inter alia that '[t]he court or judge to whom the application is made shall forthwith award the writ of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. White, No. 80SA348
...of the public from proven dangerous sex offenders. Trueblood v. Tinsley, 148 Colo. at 507, 366 P.2d at 658; see also Specht v. Tinsley, 153 Colo. 235, 385 P.2d 423 (1963) (overruled on other grounds in Specht v. Patterson, supra). This is a legitimate legislative objective and the statute i......
-
People v. Leisen
...Supreme Court decision in Williams, 337 U.S. 241, 69 S.Ct. 1079, supra, in earlier phases of the Specht litigation (Specht v. Tinsley, 153 Colo. 235, at p. 238, 385 P.2d 423 (1963); Specht v. People of Colorado, 156 Colo. 12, 396 P.2d 838 (1964)). The Tenth Circuit relied on its earlier dec......
-
Specht v. Patterson, No. 831
...day to life without notice and full hearing. The Colorado Supreme Court approved the procedure, when it was challenged by habeas corpus (153 Colo. 235, 385 P.2d 423) and on motion to set aside the judgment. 156 Colo. 12, 396 P.2d 838. This federal habeas corpus proceeding resulted, the Cour......
-
Specht v. Patterson, No. 8433.
...applied to this petitioner has been twice sustained in the Colorado Supreme Court, see Specht v. People, 396 P.2d 838; Specht v. Tinsley, 153 Colo. 235, 385 P.2d 423. As applied to others similarly situated, it has been sustained in Trueblood v. Tinsley, 148 Colo. 503, 366 P.2d 655; Vanderh......
-
People v. White, No. 80SA348
...of the public from proven dangerous sex offenders. Trueblood v. Tinsley, 148 Colo. at 507, 366 P.2d at 658; see also Specht v. Tinsley, 153 Colo. 235, 385 P.2d 423 (1963) (overruled on other grounds in Specht v. Patterson, supra). This is a legitimate legislative objective and the statute i......
-
People v. Leisen
...Supreme Court decision in Williams, 337 U.S. 241, 69 S.Ct. 1079, supra, in earlier phases of the Specht litigation (Specht v. Tinsley, 153 Colo. 235, at p. 238, 385 P.2d 423 (1963); Specht v. People of Colorado, 156 Colo. 12, 396 P.2d 838 (1964)). The Tenth Circuit relied on its earlier dec......
-
Specht v. Patterson, No. 831
...day to life without notice and full hearing. The Colorado Supreme Court approved the procedure, when it was challenged by habeas corpus (153 Colo. 235, 385 P.2d 423) and on motion to set aside the judgment. 156 Colo. 12, 396 P.2d 838. This federal habeas corpus proceeding resulted, the Cour......
-
Specht v. Patterson, No. 8433.
...applied to this petitioner has been twice sustained in the Colorado Supreme Court, see Specht v. People, 396 P.2d 838; Specht v. Tinsley, 153 Colo. 235, 385 P.2d 423. As applied to others similarly situated, it has been sustained in Trueblood v. Tinsley, 148 Colo. 503, 366 P.2d 655; Vanderh......