CO: Colorado Supreme Court to scrutinize parole requirements for juvenile sex offenders

Source: 11/10/23

The Colorado Supreme Court has agreed to answer whether the state law authorizing indefinite, potentially lifetime sentences for sex offenses makes room for the special considerations that must be given to juveniles who are tried as adults.

In a rare move, the court accepted the question not through the usual appeals process, but following a request from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, based in Denver. Colorado’s justices only agree once or twice per year to decide an issue referred to them by the federal court system.

Currently, the 10th Circuit is weighing whether the sentence of Omar Ricardo Godinez violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. A jury convicted Godinez in 2013 for his role in a pair of brutal rapes in Arapahoe County and he is serving 32 years to life in prison.

Although Godinez was 15 at the time he committed the offenses, prosecutors charged him as an adult. That meant Godinez fell under the Sex Offender Lifetime Supervision Act (SOLSA), a 1998 law generally requiring sentences up to life in prison for felony sex offenses. Defendants have the opportunity for parole at the low end of their sentencing range if they complete treatment.

Godinez has repeatedly argued such a system for adults does not comply with the U.S. Supreme Court’s specific instruction that juvenile defendants must have a “meaningful opportunity to obtain release” after the government considers their maturity and rehabilitation. Those factors do not appear in the text of SOLSA.

Read the full article


Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  19. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments


The case driving this one deals with the maturity of the minor and their development. Take a read. You and I have discussed that topic here previously.

We seem to be making progress. In Ohio the Supreme Court ruled the opposite and the Supreme Court decided not to hear it.

Yet another example of the government’s reasoning that a 15 year-old is somehow too stupid to make sexual decisions for themselves. Unless, of course, they commit a sex crime. Then, despite their age, they’re somehow perfectly mature enough to understand the consequences of their actions and can be tried as adults. In other words, too stupid to decide whether or not to have sex, but still capable of deciding to sexually assault someone.

I’m more than willing to be the designated idiot in the room to anyone who can explain to me how that is fair and logical.