Court Opinion

ID: 9593375
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:22:01.537432+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:20.850501
License: Public Domain

Justice LOHR
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
For the reasons expressed in my dissenting opinion in People v. District Court, 834 P.2d 181 (Colo.1992), I would hold that the ex post facto clauses of the Colorado and United States Constitutions prohibit the prosecution from seeking the death penalty against the defendant, Woodie M. Ashfield, Jr., in the present case. I therefore dissent from the contrary holding of the plurality.1 I agree with the majority, however, that the doctrine of revival does not permit the pre-1988 death penalty statute to be applied in Ashfield’s trial. I also agree with part III of the majority opinion concerning Ashfield’s parole eligibility in event of conviction. For the foregoing reasons, I concur in part and dissent in part.
QUINN, J., joins in this concurrence and dissent.

. The opinion authored by Chief Justice Rovira is a majority opinion as to part IIA, the revival issue, and a plurality opinion as to part IIB, the ex post facto issue. In referring to the Chief Justice’s opinion, I characterize it as either the majority opinion or the plurality opinion depending on the part of the opinion to which reference is made.