Opinion ID: 1241439
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Appeal of the Sentence Reduction Entered Pursuant to the Crim.P. 35(a) Motion

Text: On two alternate bases, we dismiss the appeal of the trial court's order, entered in January 1979 pursuant to the defendant's Crim.P. 35(a) motion, reducing the aggravated robbery sentence from 35-40 years to 25-40 years. First, we note that Crim.P. 35(a) provides that [t]he [trial] court may not reduce a sentence reviewed by an appellate court pursuant to C.A.R. 4(c) except as ordered by the reviewing court. In this case, the defendant's appeal under section 18-1-409, C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl. Vol. 8), and C.A.R. 4(c) was perfected on May 2, 1978. In July 1978, during the pendency of that appeal, the defendant filed his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to Crim.P. 35(a). Under the above-quoted provision of that rule, however, the trial court was without jurisdiction to hear the defendant's motion. [3] The trial court's order reducing the aggravated robbery sentence to a term of 25-40 years is therefore void. Second, we have recently held that a defendant has no right to appeal a denial of his Crim.P. 35(a) motion where the issue before the appellate court is the propriety of the sentence. People v. Malacara, Colo., 606 P.2d 1300, 1303 (1980). The trial court in the instant case reduced the defendant's sentence after hearing his Crim.P. 35(a) motion. However, in appealing the trial court's action, the defendant seeks a further reduction of his sentence. Therefore, for purposes of Malacara, supra, the defendant's appeal is properly treated as an appeal of the denial of a Crim.P. 35(a) motion raising the issue of the propriety of the sentence. The appeal must therefore be dismissed.