{"id":2696,"date":"2021-11-03T15:01:30","date_gmt":"2021-11-03T20:01:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?p=2696"},"modified":"2021-11-04T17:03:21","modified_gmt":"2021-11-04T22:03:21","slug":"wimberly-v-williams-10th-cir-2021","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2021\/11\/03\/wimberly-v-williams-10th-cir-2021\/","title":{"rendered":"Wimberly v. Williams (10th Cir. 2021)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Wimberly v. Williams, No. 20-1128 (10th Cir. 2021)<\/h2>\n

Nature of Case: <\/strong><\/strong>In 1984, Appellant pled guilty to first-degree sexual assault. In lieu of a conventional sentence, a determinate prison term of confinement up to 24 years, the trial court chose to impose an indeterminate term of confinement pursuant to the Colorado Sex Offenders Act of 1968.\u00a0 Approximately 37 years have now passed since Appellant was placed in confinement.\u00a0 Appellant argues that his indefinite confinement, beyond 24 years and without a new hearing, violates his right to equal protection and due process.<\/p>\n

Holding: <\/strong> In a split decision the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding and rejected Appellant’s arguments, concluding that the state trial court provided adequate procedural safeguards when imposing the indeterminate term of confinement to last anywhere from a single day to the rest of Appellant’s life.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Case Documents<\/em><\/h2>\n