People v. Ziglar

Summary

The Supreme Court of Colorado held that a defendant's admissions during the habitual-criminal sentencing phase may be considered as substantive evidence of prior felony convictions. It concluded that the trial court's modified Curtis advisement was not erroneous and that a second advisement concerning the right to testify was unnecessary. The court reversed the court of appeals and remanded for reinstatement of the defendant's habitual-criminal status.

Holdings

1. A defendant's admissions of prior felony convictions made while testifying during the habitual-criminal sentencing phase may be considered as substantive evidence of the existence of those convictions, although the admissions are not conclusive proof.
2. The trial court did not err by advising Ziglar that admissions of prior felony convictions during the habitual-criminal sentencing phase could be used as substantive evidence.
3. A trial court is not required to give a second or amended Curtis advisement before a defendant testifies during the habitual-criminal sentencing phase.

Questions Presented

1. Whether section 16-13-103 restricts the substantive use of a defendant's admissions of prior felony convictions made while testifying during the habitual-criminal sentencing phase.
2. Whether the trial court erred by giving a modified Curtis advisement informing Ziglar that sentencing-phase admissions could be used as substantive evidence.
3. Whether a trial court must give a second or amended Curtis advisement before a defendant testifies during the habitual-criminal sentencing phase.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded