Menu icon Access the Business Officer Magazine menu by clicking or touching here.
Colorado Lawyer Magazine logo, click or touch this logo to return to the homepage Click or touch the Colorado Lawyer Magazine logo to return to the homepage. Search

People v. Lowe.

2021 CO 51. No. 20SA373. General Sentencing Statutes—Sex Offender Lifetime Supervision Act—Sex Offender Intensive Supervision Probation—Consecutive Prison-Probation Sentences in a Multi­Count Case—Crime of Violence Statute.

June 14, 2021

In Allman v. People, 2019 CO 78, the Supreme Court decided that a district court lacks authority under the general sentencing statutes to sentence a defendant to prison for one offense and to probation for another in a multi-count case. But the defendant in Allman received consecutive prison­probation sentences for non-sex offenses, while the defendant in this case received consecutive prison-probation sentences that included a sentence to Sex Offender Intensive Supervision Probation (SOISP) for a “sex offense” under the Sex Offender Lifetime Supervision Act (SOLSA). The question in this original proceeding is whether Allman’s sentencing restriction applies in a case where, as here, the defendant receives a prison sentence for an offense that doesn’t qualify as a sex offense and a consecutive SOISP sentence for a sex offense.

In People v. Manaois, 2021 CO 49, one of two lead companion cases also announced on June 14, 2021, the Court holds that Allman’s prison-probation sentencing prohibition does not apply in cases where a defendant receives a prison sentence for a non-sex offense and a consecutive SOISP sentence for a sex offense. Manaois is dispositive of this original proceeding. For the reasons detailed there and summarized here, the Court concluded that the consecutive sentences to prison and probation imposed on the defendant in this case were not barred by the Allman rule.

Because the district court read Allman as rendering defendant’s sentences illegal and requiring vacatur of his guilty pleas, sentences, and judgment of conviction, it erred. However, because the Court didn’t reach defendant’s contention that the district court incorrectly reinstated his charges in violation of his rights against double jeopardy, which means that the district court’s refusal to dismiss the case stands, the Court discharged in part and made absolute in part the rule to show cause that it issued in response to his C.A.R. 21 petition. The case was remanded with instructions to (1) reinstate defendant’s guilty pleas, sentences, and judgment of conviction; and (2) resolve any outstanding postconviction motions.

Official Colorado Supreme Court proceedings can be found at the Colorado Supreme Court website.

Back to the From the Courts Page