Legal Opinion

People v. Barth

Colorado Court of Appeals

Decided April 1, 1999No. 98CA0680PublishedCited by 26 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

JUDGE BRIGGS.

Defendant, Gary Steven Barth, appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Crim. P. 35(c). We affirm but remand for correction of the mittimus.

Defendant thereafter filed pro se a Crim. P. 35(c) motion seeking to have his sentence modified. He asserted that his three-year prison sentence plus the two-year mandatory parole period resulted in a total sentence of five years, thus illegally exceeding the three-year sentence the trial court intended to impose. He also argued that, because the sentencing court did not advise him of…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Armstrong v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado · 1985
  2. People v. MontgomerySupreme Court of Colorado · 1983
  3. Deutschendorf v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado · 1996
  4. People v. PateSupreme Court of Colorado · 1994
  5. Robert James Garcia v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1974

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

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. People v. StreanColorado Court of Appeals · 2002
  2. People v. OglethorpeColorado Court of Appeals · 2003
  3. People v. GarciaColorado Court of Appeals · 2002
  4. People v. PereaColorado Court of Appeals · 2002
  5. People v. MontaineColorado Court of Appeals · 1999

21 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