CO Code § 18-1-102 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 18 - Criminal Code|Article 1 - Provisions Applicable to Offenses Generally|Part 1 - Purpose and Scope of Code - Classification of Offenses|§ 18-1-102. Purpose of Code, Statutory Construction

  This code shall be construed in such manner as to promote maximum fulfillment of its general purposes, namely:   To define offenses, to define adequately the act and mental state which constitute each offense, to place limitations upon the condemnation of conduct as criminal when it is without fault, and to give fair warning to all persons concerning the nature of the conduct prohibited and the penalties authorized upon conviction;    To forbid the commission of offenses and to prevent their occurrence through the deterrent influence of the sentences authorized; to provide for the rehabilitation of those convicted and their punishment when required in the interests of public protection;    To differentiate on reasonable grounds between serious and minor offenses, and prescribe penalties which are proportionate to the seriousness of offenses and which permit recognition of differences in rehabilitation possibilities as between individual offenders;    To prevent arbitrary or oppressive treatment of persons accused or convicted of offenses and to identify certain minimum standards for criminal justice which, within the concept of due process of law, have the stature of substantive rights of persons accused of crime;    To promote acceptance of responsibility and accountability by offenders and to provide restoration and healing for victims and the community while attempting to reduce recidivism and the costs to society by the use of restorative justice practices.        History. Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 388, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 40-1-102 . L. 2011: (1)(e) added,(HB 11-1032), ch. 296, p. 1401, § 4, effective August 10.    ANNOTATION   Law reviews. For case note, “Interjurisdictional Merger of Sentences: The Need for an Interstate Compact”, see 49 U. Colo. L. Rev. 473 (1978). For article, “Mens Rea and the Colorado Criminal Code”, see 52 U. Colo. L. Rev. 167 (1981).   Construction. Criminal statutes are to be construed strictly in favor of the accused. People v. Roybal, 618 P.2d 1121 (Colo. 1980); People v. Russell, 703 P.2d 620 (Colo. App. 1985).   Sentencing court should tailor the sentence to the defendant, keeping in mind past record, potential for rehabilitation, and protection of the public as well. People v. Alvarez, 187 Colo. 290 , 530 P.2d 506 (1975).   Sentencing discretion reposes in court. It is the court, and not the probation department, in whom sentencing discretion is reposed. People v. Edwards, 198 Colo. 52 , 598 P.2d 126 (1979).   Sentencing involves an exercise in judicial discretion and, accordingly, a sentencing judge has wide latitude in arriving at a final decision. People v. Cohen, 617 P.2d 1205 (Colo. 1980).   The trial court has wide discretion in sentencing and, absent a finding of abuse of discretion, an appellate court will not substitute its judgment for that of the trial judge. People v. Madonna, 651 P.2d 378 (Colo. 1982).   The trial court has broad discretion in sentencing one convicted of a felony. All relevant factors may be considered to determine which alternative is most appropriate to meet the sentencing goals and policies of deterrence, punishment, rehabilitation, and protection of the public. Absent a finding of an abuse of discretion, an appellate court will not substitute its judgment on appeal. Adair v. People, 651 P.2d 389 (Colo. 1982).   Record must clearly justify action of sentencing judge where a sentence is imposed for an extended term. People v. Cohen, 617 P.2d 1205 (Colo. 1980).   Considerations in appellate review of sentence. In an appellate review of a sentence, a claim of excessiveness generally requires a consideration of the nature of the offense, the character of the offender, and the public interest in safety and deterrence. People v. Cohen, 617 P.2d 1205 (Colo. 1980).   When an offender has committed offenses in a number of different jurisdictions, the sentence imposed should “promote maximum fulfillment” of the legislative directives in the sentencing statutes. People v. Lewis, 193 Colo. 203 , 564 P.2d 111 (1977).   Applied in People v. Wilson, 43 Colo. App. 68, 599 P.2d 970 (1979); People v. Martinez, 628 P.2d 608 (Colo. 1981).