Court Opinion

ID: 9792854
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:38:06.238701+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:00:58.601531
License: Public Domain

QUINN, Justice, specially
concurring:
I specially concur in the result. For reasons set forth in my dissenting opinion in Godbold v. District Court, Colo., 623 P.2d 862 (1981), I believe that the defendant is entitled under equal protection of the laws to credit for presentence confinement on both the minimum and maximum terms of his sentence. U.S.Const. Amend. XIV; Colo.Const. Art. II, Sec. 25. However, as long as the majority of the court continues to reject a constitutional source for such credit, further dissent on this recurring issue will serve no useful purpose.