People v. Rainey.
2021 CO 53. No. 20SA422. General Sentencing Statutes—Sex Offender Lifetime Supervision Act—Sex Offender Intensive Supervision Probation—Consecutive Prison-Probation Sentences in a MultiCount Case.
June 14, 2021
In Allman v. People, 2019 CO 78, the Supreme Court held 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 in People v. Manaois, 2021 CO 49, one of the two lead companion cases announced on June 14, 2021, the Court concluded that Allman’s prisonprobation sentencing prohibition is inapplicable in certain instances. Specifically, Manaois teaches that the Allman rule doesn’t apply in multi-count cases where a defendant receives (1) a prison sentence for a non-sex offense; and (2) a consecutive probation sentence for a “sex offense” pursuant to the Sex Offender Lifetime Supervision Act (SOLSA), requiring participation in Sex Offender Intensive Supervision Probation (SOISP).
Following in the footsteps of People v. Keen, 2021 CO 50, the second lead companion case announced on June 14, 2021, the Court held that Allman does not prohibit courts from sentencing a defendant in a multi-count case to prison for a non-sex offense followed by SOISP for another offense—regardless of whether the latter is a sex offense requiring an indeterminate sentence or a sex-related offense (i.e., an offense that does not qualify as a “sex offense” but that nevertheless falls within SOLSA’s scope and involves participation in SOISP) requiring a determinate sentence. So long as the probation sentence in that scenario falls within the confines of SOLSA (as does every SOISP sentence), Allman’s sentencing restriction is inapplicable.
Here, defendant received a prison sentence for a non-sex offense and a consecutive determinate sentence to SOISP for a sex-related offense. The Court concluded that Allman’s sentencing prohibition does not apply and that the consecutive prison-SOISP sentences imposed were legal.
Because the district court agreed with defendant’s postconviction contention that Allman rendered his sentences illegal and necessitated a resentencing hearing, it erred. Therefore, the Court made absolute the rule to show cause that it issued in response to the People’s C.A.R. 21 petition. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.