Court Opinion

ID: 9551423
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:53:14.884332+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:23:46.212398
License: Public Domain

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE PRINGLE
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent.
In my view, the legislature spoke very clearly when it passed 1971 Perm. Supp., C.R.S. 1963, 40-1-510, in expressing its desire that those who were in the penitentiary should receive the benefit of any substantial change in the law affecting their sentences. Its laudable purpose was to equalize sentences in the penitentiary and to provide wherever possible that the accident of the time when a crime was committed should not be a factor which leads to a great disparity of sentences.
It was our constitutional duty to rule in People v. Herrera, 183 Colo. 155, 516 P.2d 626, that the legislative purpose could not be carried out where the judgment of conviction and the sentences had become final prior to the passage of 1971 Perm. Supp., C.R.S. 1963, 40-1-510. We did so because of our dedication to the principle of the separation of powers doctrine. However, I see no reason to apply that doctrine to this case and it is my firm belief that this Court should always carry out the intention of the legislative acts when it can constitutionally do so. Here, the judgment was on appeal and was, therefore, not final at the time the section in question was passed. The courts of this state had jurisdiction to re-sentence Arellano before his sentence became final. In my view, that jurisdiction continues until today. I would so hold and thereby carry out the intention of the legislature without in any way disturbing the doctrine of the separation of powers.
*285I think In re Estrada, 63 Cal. 2d 740, 48 Cal. Rptr. 172, 408 P.2d 948; People v. Odom, 8 Ill. App. 3d 227, 289 N.E.2d 663; and People v. Oliver, 1 N.Y.2d 152, 151 N.Y.S.2d 367, 134 N.E.2d 197, are persuasive and do lead to the result which I think is proper in this case.
I am authorized to say that MR. JUSTICE DAY concurs in this dissent.