Triggs v. People
| Decision Date | 05 March 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. C-1661,C-1661 |
| Citation | 591 P.2d 1024,197 Colo. 229 |
| Parties | Oscar Wendall TRIGGS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Respondent-Appellee. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
J. Gregory Walta, Colorado State Public Defender, Craig L. Truman, Chief Deputy State Public Defender, Gene Beville, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for petitioner-appellant.
J. D. MacFarlane, Atty. Gen., David W. Robbins, Deputy Atty. Gen., Edward G. Donovan, Sol. Gen., Felipe V. Ponce, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for respondent-appellee.
Petitioner (Triggs) pleaded guilty in two cases to the crime of second-degree burglary, a class three felony, section 18-4-203, C.R.S.1973, and was sentenced by different judges to concurrent terms of 14 to 20 years at the Colorado State Penitentiary. He appeals these sentences as excessive pursuant to section 18-1-409, C.R.S.1973. We affirm.
The standards for appellate review of sentences were presented in great detail in People v. Duran, 188 Colo. 207, 533 P.2d 1116 (1975), and People v. Strong, 190 Colo. 189, 544 P.2d 966 (1976). To summarize those standards: first, sentencing is by nature a discretionary decision; second, the interests of both society and the defendant must be considered; third, rehabilitation is preferred but, if it is not feasible under the facts of the case, the deterrence of others and the protection of society are legitimate goals to pursue in sentencing; fourth, long sentences are justified on any of three bases the depravity of the offense, the gravity of the offense committed by a hardened criminal, or the assurance of public safety given the recidivism of the defendant; fifth, sentencing requires an Ad hoc analysis of the factual backgrounds of both the defendant and the particular offense for which he has been convicted; sixth, the trial court is a better arbiter of the facts than the appellate court because of its greater familiarity with the defendant and with the details of the offense; finally, the trial court's decision will not be modified absent a clear abuse of discretion.
The issue in an appellate review of sentencing, therefore, is whether or not the trial court's wide latitude is marked by a clear abuse of discretion. That determination necessarily involves a thorough review of the record.
The petitioner is a 23-year-old admitted heroin addict with an extensive juvenile and adult criminal record. Although he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Mattas
...Colo., 626 P.2d 1139; People v. Cohen, Colo., 617 P.2d 1205 (1980); People v. Scott, Colo., 615 P.2d 35 (1980); Triggs v. People, 197 Colo. 229, 591 P.2d 1024 (1979); People v. Duran, 188 Colo. 207, 533 P.2d 1116 (1975). See 4 A.B.A. Standards for Criminal Justice, Appellate Review of Sente......
-
People v. Moody
...627 P.2d 737 (1981); People v. Cohen, Colo., 617 P.2d 1205 (1980); People v. Warren, Colo., 612 P.2d 1124 (1980); Triggs v. People, 197 Colo. 229, 591 P.2d 1024 (1979); People v. Duran, 188 Colo. 207, 533 P.2d 1116 (1975). Applying those considerations to this case, we believe that the sent......
-
People v. Newman
...on appeal absent a showing that its wide latitude was marked by an abuse of discretion. Hotopp, 632 P.2d at 601; Triggs v. People, 197 Colo. 229, 591 P.2d 1024 (1979). In particular, the denial of probation is, by legislative decree, not subject to appellate review at all. See § 18-1.3-104(......
-
People v. Stiles
...harsh. The standard of review that applies is whether the trial court abused its discretion in imposing sentence. Triggs v. People, 197 Colo. 229, 591 P.2d 1024 (1979); see People v. Mikkleson, 42 Colo.App. 77, 593 P.2d 975 (1979). We find no abuse of discretion in the sentence imposed; thi......
-
Colorado Felony Sentencing
...supra, note 13 at n. 14; People v. Home, ___ Colo. ___, 619 P.2d 53 (1980); People v. Wilson, 43 Colo.App. 68,599 P.2d 970 (1979). 26. 197 Colo. 229, 591 P.2d 1024 (1979). [F]irst, sentencing is by nature a discretionary decision, second, the interests of both society and the defendant must......