Court Opinion

ID: 9810030
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:38:35.044861+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:39:20.342072
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE HOOD,
dissenting.
¶ 8 Today, in People v. Jensen, 2015 CO 42, 352 P.3d 959, this court held that the rule announced by the Supreme Court in Miller v. Alabama, — U.S. —, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012), is procedural and, as a result, does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review. In this case, the court says no more than it did in Jensen. Thus, for the same reasons I articulated in Jensen, I respectfully dissent here too. (In this case, it should be noted, however, that the People are represented by the District Attorney for the First Judicial District, who does not concede retroactivity, as the Attorney General did in Jensen.) Because the Miller rule is substantive, I would apply it retroactively to Vigil and affirm the trial court's order granting his Crim. P. 85(c) motion.
I am authorized to state that JUSTICE HOBBS joins in this dissent.