Court Opinion

ID: 9605683
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:40:42.740658+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:56.264763
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE LEE
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
The majority holds that the application of the changed legal standards of punishment is mandatory in the fact situation here presented. I disagree with this holding.
In my view, it is clear that whether the sentencing court shall apply the changed legal standards of punishment, pursuant to section 40-1-510(1)(f), is discretionary with the court. This interpretation logically follows the language of the statute, which was amended by the general assembly in 1973 by changing the words “* * * requiring in the interest of justice * * *” to “* * * allowing in the interest of justice * * *.” Colo. Sess. Laws 1973, ch. 152, 40-1-510(1)(f) at 533. This was the interpretation of both the defense counsel and the district attorney in the trial court where the motion for post-conviction relief was presented. The public defender here on appeal also viewed the authority of the court to impose the changed legal standards as a matter of discretion. *399He argued, however, that the court abused its discretion in not applying the new sentencing statute.
The record reflects the court conducted an evidentiary hearing on defendant’s motion. The defense presented evidence showing appellant had been a model prisoner. The prosecution introduced evidence showing several prior felony convictions. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court made the following findings:
“That defendant’s behavior since being incarcerated for this offense has been somewhat better than that of the average penitentiary inmate.
“That sentencing Exhibit ‘A’, FBI Report of previous convictions of defendant reveals many prior felony convictions and that this was taken into consideration by this Court at time of sentencing. That at today’s hearing defendant testified that as to at least six prior felony convictions, some of same having been tried to a jury, defendant was represented by counsel.
“That a major factor in sentencing is the desirability of rehabilitation. That defendant has exhibited a strong disinclination to be rehabilitated. That defendant is an obvious threat to society.”
The court determined that the interests of justice would not be served by application of the changed legal standards.
Appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in view of appellant’s exemplary behavior while in prison and in view of the recommendation of low minimum terms contained in ABA, Standards Relating to Sentencing Alternatives and Procedures § 3.2. We recognize that low minimum terms are desirable in that they provide the parole department flexibility in fulfillment of its rehabilitation function.
In the present case, however, there is nothing in the record to support appellant’s claim that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to modify the sentence imposed.
We note that in the few states where the courts have applied newly enacted standards of punishment to pending criminal cases where the criminal act occurred prior to the enactment, as set forth in the majority opinion, there was no *400legislative direction as to how the new penalties were to be applied. In Colorado, the general assembly has directed that, where constitutionally permissible, the courts may in the interest of justice apply the changed legal standards of punishment. This, in my view, is the distinguishing factor. The general assembly has directed that application of the changed legal standards be discretionary, not mandatory.
The judgment should be affirmed.
I am authorized to say that MR. JUSTICE HODGES and MR. JUSTICE ERICKSON join in this dissent.