People v. Lientz
2012 COA 118
Colo. Ct. App.2012Background
- Defendant pled guilty to sexual offenses in two cases: 01 CR 1828 (two counts of sexual exploitation of a child and one of sexual assault on a child by a person in a position of trust) and 01 CR 1848 (sexual exploitation of a child).
- Plea agreements provided lifetime probation and consecutive jail terms (two two-year terms in 01 CR 1828; two-year term to be served consecutively in 01 CR 1848).
- District court sentenced consistent with pleas; defendant later released from jail.
- A probation revocation petition followed two months later for admissions and noncompliance; probation was revoked and then regranted.
- A second, 15-year-to-life, sentence was imposed after a later revocation hearing based on multiple alleged violations of probation conditions, including sex offender evaluation/treatment noncompliance and various sexual behaviors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether two probation conditions are statutorily/constitutionally authorized | Lientz argued the conditions were not reasonably related to rehabilitation. | Lientz contends the conditions violate statute and constitutional rights. | No plain error; conditions reasonably relate to rehabilitation and public safety. |
| Constitutionality of prohibition on intimate sexual contact without prior approval | Conditions infringed liberty, privacy, and association rights. | Conditions are overly broad and infringe constitutional rights. | Not plainly unconstitutional; conditions narrowly tailored and permissible. |
| Overbreadth of prohibition on possessing pornography | Pornography ban overly broad and infringes First Amendment rights. | Condition sweeps too broadly over protected conduct. | Not unconstitutionally overbroad given the offense context and commonsense reading. |
| Void-for-vagueness of the two conditions | Conditions lack clear standards; vague as to meaning of terms like 'intimate' and 'pornography'. | Conditions vague and unconstitutional. | Not plainly vague; readings align with common understanding and case law. |
| Due process: sufficiency of district court’s revocation findings | Need explicit reasons and evidence cited for revocation. | General finding based on uncontroverted testimony suffices. | Court’s oral findings adequate; explicit itemized findings not required where evidence is uncontroverted. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Brockelman, 933 P.2d 1315 (Colo. 1997) (probation conditions related to rehabilitation and protection have broad latitude)
- People v. Vigil, 251 P.3d 442 (Colo.App. 2010) (plain error not found when error not obvious on record)
- Wilfong v. Commonwealth, 175 S.W.3d 84 (Ky. Ct. App. 2004) (relates to reasonableness and tailoring of sex-offense probation conditions)
- Krebs v. Schwarz, 568 N.W.2d 28 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997) (probation condition prohibiting certain sexual relationships reasonable and related to rehabilitation)