Webster's New International Dictionary 2554 (3d ed. 1961). Neither of Harris's other two cases—Leyba v. People , 174 Colo. 1, 481 P.2d 417 (1971) and People v. Fox , 928 P.2d 820 (Colo. App. 1996) —explicitly discuss the force required to constitute robbery in Colorado. Moreover, in Fox , the court described the force used by the defendant as a "forceful shove."
We note that defendant's counsel did not even talk to defendant nor review the discovery he had in his possession prior to the sentencing hearing even though he had more than a month and a half to do so.SeeLeyba v. People,174 Colo. 1, 5, 481 P.2d 417, 419 (1971)(no abuse of discretion in denying a continuance where defendant's counsel had a reasonable period of time to prepare for trial). Further, now that defendant has the transcripts available on appeal, he has not pointed to a single mitigating factor which was only available in the transcripts and not discernable from the other
As such, it was properly admitted. Leyba v. People, 174 Colo. 1, 481 P.2d 417 (1971).See also People v. Orr, 39 Colo. App. 289, 566 P.2d 1361 (1977).
Under the circumstances present here, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's "eleventh hour" request for a continuance. E.g., People v. Martinez, 190 Colo. 507, 549 P.2d 758 (1976); People v. McClure, 190 Colo. 250, 545 P.2d 1038 (1976); People v. Saavedra, 184 Colo. 90, 518 P.2d 283 (1974); People v. Peery, 180 Colo. 161, 503 P.2d 350 (1972) People v. Buckner, 180 Colo. 65, 504 P.2d 669 (1972); Leyba v. People, 174 Colo. 1, 481 P.2d 417 (1971); Johnson v. People, 172 Colo. 72, 470 P.2d 37 (1970). A defendant who has been given adequate opportunity and time to prepare for trial cannot complain if the court orders the trial to commence at the appointed time.
There was no error in admitting this testimony. [4] Evidence tending to establish the identity of a defendant as a perpetrator of an offense is admissible even if it incidentally indicates commission of another offense. Leyba v. People, 174 Colo. 1, 481 P.2d 417 (1971); People v. Orr, 39 Colo. App. 289, 566 P.2d 1361 (1977). Finally, Hollis contends that the trial court erred in refusing to give two tendered instructions on the credibility of eyewitness identification.
[9] Evidence tending to establish identity of a defendant is admissible even if it incidentally indicates commission of another offense. Leyba v. People, 174 Colo. 1, 481 P.2d 417. Here, as in Leyba, testimony as to defendant's incarceration was limited to only those circumstances which were directly related to Vigil's identification of defendant.