Sharp v. Tinsley

3 Citing cases

  1. In re Question Concerning Judicial Review

    199 Colo. 463 (Colo. 1980)   Cited 22 times
    Holding that "a person denied parole can seek judicial review only as provided by C.R.C.P. 106"

    Nevertheless, section 17-2-201 creates certain statutory duties which the Board must perform in making its decision: e.g., the duty to interview the inmate under subsection (9)(a). It is only when the Board has failed to exercise its statutory duties that the courts of Colorado have the power to review the Board's actions. Cf. Sharp v. Tinsley, 147 Colo. 84, 362 P.2d 859 (1961) (judicial review by writ of habeas corpus of the Board's order for prisoner to resume serving his original minimum sentence after the governor had already commuted his minimum sentence to a lesser amount); Snyder v. U.S. Board of Parole, 383 F. Supp. 1153 (D. Colo. 1974) (judicial review by writ of mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (1970) applied to parole board actions under the Youth Corrections Act, 18 U.S.C. § 5005 et seq. (1970)). [7] Due to the limited record which has been supplied to this court regarding the four cases which gave rise to this question of state judicial review, it is difficult for this court to give a definitive answer to the question as it applies to each of the petitioners for habeas corpus in the United States District Court.

  2. Coleman v. Tinsley

    393 P.2d 739 (Colo. 1964)

    Under these circumstances the petition was properly denied. Sharp v. Tinsley, 147 Colo. 84, 362 P.2d 859; Berry v. State Board of Parole, 148 Colo. 547, 367 P.2d 338. There is no merit to the argument that the authority of the State Board of Parole is limited to persons who have been convicted and sentenced to prison subsequent to the act of the legislature which created said Board.

  3. Espinoza v. Tinsley

    390 P.2d 941 (Colo. 1964)   Cited 1 times

    The petitioner was not brought before the court, and no hearing was conducted. The issue presented here is determined by our holding in Sharp v. Tinsley, 147 Colo. 84, 362 P.2d 859. In that case we held that it was error for the district court to refuse to issue the writ and to hold a hearing thereon when the allegations of the petition indicate sufficient facts to require the possible issuance thereof.