People v. Avila

4 Citing cases

  1. People v. Cunefare

    No. 03SC782 (Colo. Dec. 30, 2004)

    The definitions section of the statute answers the first question for us. Specifically, section 18-5-101(9), C.R.S. (2004), defines written instrument in part as "any paper, document, or other instrument containing written or printed matter or the equivalent thereof, used for purposes of reciting, employing, conveying, or recording information." See also People v. Avila, 770 P.2d 1330 (Colo.App. 1988) (holding that computerized driver's records constitute a "written instrument"). The second issue is the more difficult one.

  2. People v. Cunefare

    102 P.3d 302 (Colo. 2004)   Cited 7 times
    Holding that statute prohibiting forgery encompasses not only forgery of instruments affecting pecuniary interests, but also forgery of instruments having other legal effects

    The definitions section of the statute answers the first question for us. Specifically, section 18-5-101(9), C.R.S. (2004), defines written instrument in part as "any paper, document, or other instrument containing written or printed matter or the equivalent thereof, used for purposes of reciting, employing, conveying, or recording information." See also People v. Avila, 770 P.2d 1330 (Colo.App. 1988) (holding that computerized driver's records constitute a "written instrument"). The second issue is the more difficult one.

  3. Avila v. People

    52 P.3d 230 (Colo. 2002)   Cited 6 times

    Avila charged his clients between $1,500 and $3,000 for his services. See People v. Avila, 770 P.2d 1330 (Colo.App. 1988). Avila was sentenced to a period of probation on these convictions.

  4. People v. Cunefare

    85 P.3d 594 (Colo. App. 2004)   Cited 4 times
    In People v. Harold Cunefare, 85 P.3d 594 (Colo.App. 2003), the court of appeals reversed Harold Cunefare's convictions for tampering with a witness or victim under section 18-8-707, C.R.S. (2004), and for forgery under section 18-5-102, C.R.S. (2004).

    Defendant argues that the letter in question is not the type of "instrument" contemplated by this section of the forgery statute. See People v. Avila, 770 P.2d 1330 (Colo.App. 1988) (concluding that the term "written instrument" included a computer disc). We agree and conclude that to satisfy subsection (1)(c) of the forgery statute, a document must purport to have legal efficacy that affects some right or status.