Colorado Court of Appeals· 10/1/2009

People v. Tillery

Citations

231 P.3d 36
2009 WL 3128744

How courts have described this case

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

holding that Tillery’s argument that the instruction was prejudicial because it referred to “the incident” was waived by his active participation in its wording
noting that, in the double jeopardy context, \the answer would invariably be 'yes' \
noting that, in the double jeopardy context, \the answer would invariably be 'yes' \
reviewing defendant’s unpre-served double jeopardy claim for plain error under Crim. P. 52(b)
reviewing defendant’s unpreserved double jeopardy claim for plain error under Crim. P. 52(b)
applying plain error review to unpreserved claim of double jeopardy sentencing errors

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Bernard, Roman, Webb

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

50 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

121 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named People v. Tillery

18 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.