2021 Colorado Code
Title 17 - Corrections
Article 27.7 - Regimented Inmate Discipline and Treatment Program
§ 17-27.7-104. Acceptance and Completion of the Program by an Offender - Reconsideration of Sentence

1. The department, upon acceptance of an offender into the program, shall immediately notify the court of such acceptance.
2. 1. If an offender successfully completes a regimented inmate training program, such offender, within sixty days of termination or completion of the program, shall automatically be referred to the sentencing court so that the offender may make a motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to rule 35 (b) of the Colorado rules of criminal procedure.
   2. The department shall submit a report to the court concerning such offender's performance in the program. Such report may recommend that the offender be placed in a specialized probation or community corrections program. The court may not summarily deny the offender's motion without a complete consideration of all pertinent information provided by the offender, the offender's attorney, and the district attorney. The court may issue an order modifying the offender's sentence and placing the offender on probation or in a community corrections program.

      (b.5) Notwithstanding the fact that the offender's case is on appeal, the sentencing court shall retain jurisdiction to consider and rule on motions for reconsideration filed pursuant to this subsection (2).

   3. 1. Any motion filed pursuant to paragraph (a) of this subsection (2) shall be given priority for consideration by the sentencing court. An offender who successfully completes the regimented inmate training program within twenty-eight months prior to such offender's parole eligibility date shall be eligible for placement in a community corrections program operated pursuant to article 27 of this title. (c) (I) Any motion filed pursuant to paragraph (a) of this subsection (2) shall be given priority for consideration by the sentencing court. An offender who successfully completes the regimented inmate training program within twenty-eight months prior to such offender's parole eligibility date shall be eligible for placement in a community corrections program operated pursuant to article 27 of this title.
      2. An offender placed in a community corrections program pursuant to subparagraph (I) of this paragraph (c) may be required to participate in a structured, transitional discipline program in such community corrections program for six months or until completion of the offender's sentence, whichever occurs first.
      3. Upon satisfactory completion of the community corrections program, an offender whose sentence has not been completely served may be required to participate in the intensive supervision program pursuant to section 17-27.5-102.

History. Source: L. 90: Entire article added, p. 964, § 1, effective June 7. L. 95: Entire section amended, p. 184, § 1, effective April 7. L. 98: (2)(c)(I) amended, p. 318, § 1, effective July 1. L. 2007: (2)(b.5) added, p. 557, § 3, effective April 16.

Defendant is required to file motion for reduction of sentence within 120 days after the date of successful completion of regimented inmate training program. This is because Crim. P. 35(b) provides a 120-day time limitation for the filing of a motion for reduction of sentence, and this section requires that a motion to reduce sentence must be brought pursuant to Crim. P. 35(b). People v. Campbell, 75 P.3d 1151 (Colo. App. 2003).

This section expressly incorporates the provisions of Crim. P. 35(b) as the framework for considering sentence reduction for any participant in the regimented inmate training program. Crim. P. 35(b) provides that the trial court “may, after considering the motion and supporting documents, if any, deny the motion without a hearing.” Therefore, the plain language of the rule belies the claim that a hearing is required on a Crim. P. 35(b) motion. People v. Morales-Uresti, 934 P.2d 856 (Colo. App. 1996) (decided under law in effect prior to 1995 amendment).

Trial court gave complete consideration to defendant's Crim. P. 35(b) motion even though the record did not contain any information provided by defendant, his attorney, or the district attorney after defendant's acceptance into the regimented inmate training program. The court should not be precluded from ruling on defendant's motion simply because none of those entitled to provide additional information to the court chose to do so. People v. Morales-Uresti, 934 P.2d 856 (Colo. App. 1996) (decided under law in effect prior to 1995 amendment).

Resentencing of a successful regimented inmate training program participant is governed by the same statutory limits applicable to Crim. P. 35(b) resentencing. A Crim. P. 35(b) motion, and therefore a motion for reduction of sentence under this section, gives the court discretion to resentence the defendant to a lesser term within the statutory limits, but not to lower a mandatory minimum sentence imposed by law for a specific crime. People v. Smith, 971 P.2d 1056 (Colo. 1999).

Persons convicted of child abuse resulting in death are eligible for sentence modification upon successful completion of the regimented inmate training program, but the sentencing court's discretion is limited by the relevant mandatory sentencing limits. People v. Smith, 971 P.2d 1056 (Colo. 1999).

An offender who completes the boot camp program must be referred to the sentencing court after completing the program to reconsider sentencing, however, that does not mean the judge who imposed the sentence must consider the request to reduce the defendant's sentence. The request must merely be considered by a district court judge with the power to rule on such a motion. People v. Banuelos-Landa, 109 P.3d 1039 (Colo. App. 2004).

This section does not allow a court to reduce a sentence to less than the statutory minimum sentence for the crime committed. Thus the sentence of a person serving a mandatory minimum sentence for child abuse resulting in death could not be reduced pursuant to this section. People v. Smith, 971 P.2d 1056 (Colo. 1999).

District attorney not permitted to withdraw from plea agreement when sentence reduced pursuant to this section. Because the plea agreement did not foreclose the future possibility of a reduction in sentence, the court-ordered sentence reduction could not amount to a substantial and material breach of the agreement between the parties. Keller v. People, 29 P.3d 290 (Colo. 2000).