People v. Ford

7 Citing cases

  1. People v. Gardner

    250 P.3d 1262 (Colo. App. 2010)   Cited 24 times
    Departing from Flagg when striking down defendant's sentence stemming from a guilty plea because "this assumption [in Flagg] does not logically carry over to an aggregate theft offense . . . we cannot assume that by pleading guilty [defendant] admitted that a theft was not committed until the last date alleged in the charge."

    Because we perceive his challenge as an as-applied challenge to the constitutionality of the statute, we disagree. In People v. Ford, 232 P.3d 260, 263 (Colo. App. 2009), a division of this court held that a guilty plea waives an as-applied challenge to the constitutionality of the statute under which the conviction was entered. "[A]n as-applied challenge alleges that the statute is unconstitutional as to the specific circumstances under which a defendant acted."

  2. No on EE v. Beall

    2024 COA 79 (Colo. App. 2024)

    "[A]n as-applied challenge alleges that the statute is unconstitutional as to the specific circumstances under which a defendant acted." People v. Ford, 232 P.3d 260, 263 (Colo.App. 2009). Subject to a limited exception discussed below, a party "can only succeed in a facial challenge by 'establish[ing] that no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid,' i.e., that the law is unconstitutional in all of its applications."

  3. People v. Lee

    477 P.3d 732 (Colo. App. 2019)   Cited 2 times

    And where, as here, the constitutional challenge is as-applied, we must examine the case's circumstances. People v. Ford , 232 P.3d 260, 263 (Colo. App. 2009) ; compare People v. Jefferson , 748 P.2d 1223 (Colo. 1988) (facial equal protection challenge), with Slaughter , ¶ 15 (as applied equal protection challenge).

  4. People v. Trujillo

    369 P.3d 693 (Colo. App. 2015)   Cited 11 times

    Id. at 1268(internal quotation marks omitted); accord Qwest Servs. Corp. v. Blood,252 P.3d 1071, 1085 (Colo.2011); People v. Ford,232 P.3d 260, 263 (Colo.App.2009); Sanger v. Dennis,148 P.3d 404, 410 (Colo.App.2006). ¶ 21 Trujillo raises only an as-applied challenge to the identity theft statute.

  5. People v. Nozolino

    350 P.3d 940 (Colo. App. 2014)   Cited 6 times
    Reviewing trial court’s denial of lesser nonincluded offense instruction for abuse of discretion when the denial was made "on a factual basis"

    An as-applied challenge alleges that a statute is unconstitutional as to the specific circumstances under which a defendant acted. People v. Ford, 232 P.3d 260, 263 (Colo.App.2009). Whether a defendant has made a threshold showing that the First Amendment applies to his conduct is a question of law that we review de novo.

  6. People v. Boles

    280 P.3d 55 (Colo. App. 2011)   Cited 11 times
    Holding that the Internet child luring statute applies, on its face, to some protected speech because it is not content neutral and arguably applies to conduct that is not obscene

    “[A]n as-applied challenge alleges that the statute is unconstitutional as to the specific circumstances under which a defendant acted.” People v. Gardner, 250 P.3d 1262, 1268 (Colo.App.2010) (quoting People v. Ford, 232 P.3d 260, 263 (Colo.App.2009)). The record is replete with evidence that defendant, via computer messages, described explicit sexual conduct to “Trista.”

  7. People v. Cardenas

    Court of Appeals No. 09CA1092 (Colo. App. Jan. 20, 2011)   Cited 3 times
    Rejecting a defendant's contention that the restitution interest statute is an excessive fine and concluding that the defendant's inability to work is irrelevant

    Defendant's argument raises an as-applied challenge to the portion of the restitution statute requiring postjudgment interest. See People v. Ford, 232 P.3d 260, 263 (Colo. App. 2009)("an as-applied challenge alleges that the statute is unconstitutional as to the specific circumstances under which a defendant acted"). Thus, defendant bears the burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the statute's application to him is unconstitutional.