Legal Opinion

Young v. People

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided August 20, 2001No. 00SC240PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Kourlis

Defendant, Michael Shane Young, claims that his plea of guilty was infirm because the trial court did not advise him of the mandatory parole consequences of a sentence to incarceration at the time of the providency hearing. In analyzing Defendant's claims, we first restate the proposition that mandatory parole is a direct consequence of a plea of guilty to a felony that could carry a prison sentence. Hence, the trial court must so advise the defendant at the providency hearing, although the failure to do so may be harmless error. Even if the parties have reached a stipulated plea agreement…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Craig v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado · 1999
  2. People v. BirdsongSupreme Court of Colorado · 1998
  3. People v. ChippewaSupreme Court of Colorado · 1988
  4. People v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Colorado · 2000
  5. Benavidez v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado · 1999

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Palmer v. StateNevada Supreme Court · 2002
  2. Crumb v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado · 2010
  3. People v. FrenchColorado Court of Appeals · 2007
  4. Dawson v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado · 2001
  5. People v. MarezSupreme Court of Colorado · 2002

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API