Leyba v. People

6 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Harris

    844 F.3d 1260 (10th Cir. 2017)   Cited 130 times
    Holding that a conviction under Colorado’s robbery statute triggers enhancement under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)

    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."

  2. Smith v. Bonner

    104 F. Supp. 3d 1252 (D. Colo. 2015)   Cited 5 times
    Noting that, "[t]o date, the [United States] Supreme Court has not articulated a standard for deciding a Sixth Amendment claim based on a habeas petitioner's allegation the trial court denied his request for substitute counsel" (citing Peterson)

    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

  3. Hollis v. People

    630 P.2d 68 (Colo. 1981)   Cited 16 times
    In Hollis, we found that, "[w]hile there is no explicit statute or rule requiring the administration of an oath to a jury in this state, the need for such an oath has been judicially recognized.

    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).

  4. People v. Lucero

    200 Colo. 335 (Colo. 1980)   Cited 48 times
    Denying the defendant's request for continuance based on his being unprepared for trial

    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.

  5. People v. Hollis

    43 Colo. App. 331 (Colo. App. 1979)   Cited 2 times

    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.

  6. PEOPLE v. ORR

    39 Colo. App. 289 (Colo. App. 1977)   Cited 11 times
    In People v. Orr, 39 Colo. App. 289, 566 P.2d 1361 (1977), a division of this court affirmed the admission of testimony containing a co-conspirator's hearsay statement made after the crime had been completed.

    [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.