Court Opinion

ID: 9561289
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:06:36.750968+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:42.735084
License: Public Domain

*873TURSI, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
Although the probationer is not entitled to claim the full range of constitutional guarantees, Holdren v. People, 168 Colo. 474, 452 P.2d 28 (1969), she is entitled to certain minimum requirements of due process including “a written statement by factfinders as to the evidence relied on and reasons for revoking [probation]_” People v. Atencio, 186 Colo. 76, 525 P.2d 461 (1974); § 19-3-117(3)(d)(II), C.R.S. (1978 Repl.Vol. 8). See also Strickland v. People, 197 Colo. 488, 594 P.2d 578 (1979).
Here, although there was evidence presented from which conflicting inferences could be drawn, the court made neither oral nor written findings of fact with respect to the particular conditions violated. In areas in which the Supreme Court has mandated specific findings, neither the trial court nor this court ignore that mandate.
Because significant rights of C.J.W. were at issue, minimal standards of procedural due process required that the trial court state the reasons for its determination explicit enough to evince the basis of its order revoking probation. It is not for us to speculate on which conditions or on what evidence the trial court based its decision. People v. Atencio, supra.
Accordingly, the order revoking probation should be vacated and the cause remanded to the juvenile court with directions to enter new orders on the record supported by findings concerning the evidence upon which it relies and the basis of its order.