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

Sullivan v. People.

2020 CO 58. No. 18SC789. CRS § 18-1-409(1)—Incorrect Sentencing Range—Direct Appeal—Plea Proviso—“Propriety of the Sentence”—“Propriety of the Sentencing Proceeding.”

June 15, 2020


The Supreme Court held that “the propriety of the sentence,” as that phrase is used in CRS § 18-1-409(1), does not encompass the manner in which the sentence was imposed (i.e., the propriety of the sentencing proceeding). Because defendant’s appeal concerns the manner in which his sentence was imposed, the Court concluded that it is not barred by CRS § 18-1-409(1), even though his sentence fell within the range agreed upon by the parties pursuant to their plea agreement. In so doing, the Court reaffirmed its interpretation of the statutory phrase “the propriety of the sentence” in People v. Malacara, 606 P.2d 1300 (Colo. 1980). The Court of Appeals’ judgment dismissing defendant’s appeal was reversed.

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


Related Topics

CRS § 18-1-409(1), Incorrect Sentencing Range, Direct Appeal, Plea Proviso, “Propriety of the Sentence”, “Propriety of the Sentencing Proceeding”

Back to the From the Courts Page