Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
People v. Warner

5 Citing cases

  1. Lucio-Rayos v. Sessions

    875 F.3d 573 (10th Cir. 2017)   Cited 37 times
    Holding that the right to a "removal hearing that comports with due process" includes the right to "a fair and impartial decision-maker" and setting forth the recusal standard

    A conviction generally under WMC 6-3-1(A), thus, does not categorically qualify as a CIMT.See People v. Warner, 801 P.2d 1187, 1188-89 (Colo. 1990) (explaining, in a case addressing theft by deception from a person, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-4-401(1)(a), (5), that Colorado's current theft statute, id. § 18-4-401, incorporates the common-law offenses of larceny, embezzlement, false pretenses, and confidence games); People v. Sharp, 104 P.3d 252, 254-58 (Colo. Ct. App. 2004) (stating, in holding that there was sufficient evidence to support a conviction for theft under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-4-401(1)(b), by knowingly using, concealing, or abandoning "the thing of value in such manner as to deprive the other person permanently of its use or benefit," that jury can infer intent to deprive another permanently of the use of benefits of a thing of value from defendant's conduct and the circumstances of the case). The Colorado case on which Lucio-Rayos relies, People v. Quick, 713 P.2d 1282, 1285-89 (Colo.

  2. People v. Smith

    121 P.3d 243 (Colo. App. 2005)   Cited 33 times
    Holding that, although the "defendant was not guilty of theft from a person, ... defendant's actions, as found by the jury, constitute[d] theft pursuant to [ section] 18-4-401"

    In People v. Warner, 801 P.2d 1187 (Colo. 1990), the defendant argued that his actions did not constitute theft from the person. The defendant had utilized a series of short-change transactions to steal money from a cashier.

  3. Bailey v. Shell W. E&P, Inc.

    609 F.3d 710 (5th Cir. 2010)   Cited 110 times
    Concluding that the right of unilateral dismissal under Rule 41 is qualified by False Claims Act consent requirement

    "Theft by deception as set forth in subsection 18-4-401(1)(a) requires proof that the victim relied on a swindler's misrepresentations, which caused the victim to part with something of value." Id. (citing People v. Warner, 801 P.2d 1187, 1189-90 (Colo. 1990)). The relevant portion of COLO. REV. STAT. § 18-4-401 states:

  4. Martinez v. State Bd. of Par

    989 P.2d 256 (Colo. App. 1999)   Cited 2 times

    To discern legislative intent, we should look first to the statutory language. See People v. Warner, 801 P.2d 1187 (Colo. 1990). Section 17-22.

  5. People v. McCarty

    851 P.2d 181 (Colo. App. 1992)   Cited 6 times
    Rejecting similar argument

    To discern legislative intent, a court should look first to the statutory language. People v. Warner, 801 P.2d 1187 (Colo. 1990). Words and phrases should be given effect according to their plain and ordinary meaning.