People v. Dunlap

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that “[n]o evidentiary hearing would be necessary in [the] event” that the appellate court remanded the case and the defendant recaptioned his claims under Crim. P. 35(a)
• “[T]here is a significant difference between a true illegal sentence claim under Crim. P. 35(a
• “[A]n illegal sentence can be corrected at any time through amendment of the mittimus.”
• “Because defendant would seek to attack his conviction, not just his sentence, we decline to allow a new appeal, which would effectively open his entire case to relitigation, contrary to finality principles.”
• “Because defendant would seek to attack his conviction, not just his sentence, we decline to allow a new appeal, which would effectively open his entire case to relitigation, contrary to finality principles.”
• “[A] claim that an illegal sentence has been imposed because of a failure to consider or fix restitution does not affect the finality of [the] judgment of conviction. . . . Crim. P. 35(a

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

8 cases in this archive cite this case.

• v. Knoeppchen
  Colorado Court of Appeals· 2019-03-07· cited 193×
• People v. Bowerman
  Colorado Court of Appeals· 2010-09-02· cited 191×
• v. Weeks
  Colorado Court of Appeals· 2020-03-19· cited 104×
• People v. Vasseur
  Colorado Court of Appeals· 2016-07-14· cited 15×
• People v. Cardenas
  Colorado Court of Appeals· 2011-01-20· cited 9×
• v. Cattaneo
  Colorado Court of Appeals· 2020-03-12· cited 6×
• People v. Padilla-Lopez
  Colorado Court of Appeals· 2010-07-22· cited 1×
• Greg Grant v. The Commercial Appeal
  Court of Appeals of Tennessee· 2015-09-18