Vanderhoof v. People, 20335
| Docket Nº | No. 20335 |
| Citation | 380 P.2d 903, 152 Colo. 147 |
| Case Date | April 22, 1963 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Colorado |
Page 903
v.
The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Defendant in Error.
Plaintiff in error, pro se.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank [152 Colo. 148] E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., John E. Bush, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for defendant in error.
DAY, Justice.
Plaintiff in error was charged in a criminal information with four counts of indecent liberties as defined in C.R.S. '53, 40-2-32. Upon agreement with the district attorney to withdraw the 1st, 3rd and 4th counts of the information--which was done--defendant entered a plea of guilty to the second count. Whereupon the procedures in 1960 Perm.Supp., C.R.S. 39-19-1, were initiated by the court, and defendant was sentenced pursuant to the latter statute, familiarly known as the sex offenders act, to not less than one day nor more than life in the state penitentiary.
On January 17, 1962, pursuant to the post conviction remedies provided in Rule 35(b), Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure, Vanderhoof filed a petition in the district court to correct the judgment and sentence heretofore imposed upon him and prayed in his petition that he be sentenced pursuant to the penalty as provided in C.R.S. '53, 40-2-32, wherein it is stated that for conviction of the count in the information to which defendant entered his plea of guilty sentence shall be for a term of not more than ten years. The petition to correct the sentence and judgment was denied. Defendant filed a motion for new trial pursuant to Rule 33, Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure, and that motion was denied. It is from denial by the court of the relief sought that plaintiff in error has sued out this writ of error.
The main contention of Vanderhoof in the trial court is that C.R.S. '53, 39-19-1, is unconstitutional. His contentions in this regard have already been answered by this court in a recent case of Trueblood v. Tinsley, 148 [152 Colo. 149] Colo. 503, 366 P.2d 655, decided December 26, 1961, wherein on the point urged here the court said:
"The application of the sex offenders act to petitioner is unlawful
Page 904
and resulted in a denial of the equal protection of the law.' The differential in sentences that may be imposed under the two acts furnishes the basis for this contention.'Generally, statutes which prescribe different punishments for the same violations committed under the same circumstances by persons in like situations are void as violative of the equal protection of the laws. Equal treatment under the law is a right constitutionally afforded citizens.
'Statutes similar to the one under consideration have been held not repugnant to the equal protection provision. Stae v. Evans, 73 Idaho 50, 245 P.2d 788; Minnesota ex rel. Pearson v. Probate Court, 309 U.S. 270, 60 S.Ct. 523, 84 L.Ed. 744, 126 A.L.R. 530. In these decisions it is recognized that the state has the right 'through its legislature, to classify persons * * *, based upon reasonable and natural distinctions, to accomplish the legitimate purposes of its police power,' in fixing the differing penalties. State v. Evans, supra [73 Idaho...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Marcy, No. 80SA303
...under Article II, Section 25, of the Colorado Constitution. E. g., Heninger v. Charnes, Colo., 613 P.2d 884 (1980); Vanderhoof v. People, 152 Colo. 147, 380 P.2d 903 (1963); People v. Max, 70 Colo. 100, 198 P. 150 2 It was the defendant's theory that to prevent him from committing suicide h......
-
State ex rel. Fulton v. Scheetz, 53068
...to the public, or is an habitual offender and mentally ill. That is a new finding of fact (Vanderhoof v. People of State of Colorado, 152 Colo. 147, 149, 380 P.2d 903, 904) that was not an ingredient of the offense charged. The punishment under the second Act is criminal punishment even tho......
-
Sas v. State of Maryland, Civ. A. No. 14808
...to the public, or is an habitual offender and mentally ill. That is a new finding of fact (Vanderhoof v. People of State of Colorado, 152 Colo. 147, 149, 380 P.2d 903, 904) that was not an ingredient of the offense charged. The punishment under the second Act is criminal punishment even tho......
-
Godbold v. District Court In and For Twenty-First Judicial Dist., TWENTY-FIRST
...Colorado Constitution, Colo.Const. Art. II, Sec. 25. See, e. g., Heninger v. Charnes, Colo., 613 P.2d 884 (1980); Vanderhoof v. People, 152 Colo. 147, 380 P.2d 903 (1963); People v. Max, 70 Colo. 100, 198 P. 150 2 The petitioner was represented by the public defender during all stages of th......
-
People v. Marcy, No. 80SA303
...under Article II, Section 25, of the Colorado Constitution. E. g., Heninger v. Charnes, Colo., 613 P.2d 884 (1980); Vanderhoof v. People, 152 Colo. 147, 380 P.2d 903 (1963); People v. Max, 70 Colo. 100, 198 P. 150 2 It was the defendant's theory that to prevent him from committing suicide h......
-
State ex rel. Fulton v. Scheetz, 53068
...to the public, or is an habitual offender and mentally ill. That is a new finding of fact (Vanderhoof v. People of State of Colorado, 152 Colo. 147, 149, 380 P.2d 903, 904) that was not an ingredient of the offense charged. The punishment under the second Act is criminal punishment even tho......
-
Sas v. State of Maryland, Civ. A. No. 14808
...to the public, or is an habitual offender and mentally ill. That is a new finding of fact (Vanderhoof v. People of State of Colorado, 152 Colo. 147, 149, 380 P.2d 903, 904) that was not an ingredient of the offense charged. The punishment under the second Act is criminal punishment even tho......
-
Godbold v. District Court In and For Twenty-First Judicial Dist., TWENTY-FIRST
...Colorado Constitution, Colo.Const. Art. II, Sec. 25. See, e. g., Heninger v. Charnes, Colo., 613 P.2d 884 (1980); Vanderhoof v. People, 152 Colo. 147, 380 P.2d 903 (1963); People v. Max, 70 Colo. 100, 198 P. 150 2 The petitioner was represented by the public defender during all stages of th......