Concerning post-conviction relief for certain offenders sentenced to imprisonment, and, in connection therewith, making and reducing an appropriation.
SB 26-115 creates a new post-conviction resentencing process for certain incarcerated people in Colorado who have served long prison terms. A person may petition for relief if the offense was committed before age 21 and the person has served at least 20 calendar years, or if the person is at least 60 years old and has served at least 20 calendar years for the offense. The bill requires the petitioner to show by a preponderance of the evidence that they no longer pose an identifiable danger to public safety and that there is good cause to modify the sentence. If the petition is granted, the person may then seek reconsideration and reduction of the original sentence under Colorado Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b), with the court imposing an appropriate new sentence.
The bill includes procedural protections and limits. Petitioners have a right to counsel, with the public defender or alternate defense counsel appointed for pro se filings, and the court may allow discovery and require a hearing. Victims must be notified and given an opportunity to be heard. The court must consider factors such as age at the time of the offense, current age and reoffense risk, offense severity, rehabilitation, institutional conduct, trauma or other mitigating history, victim impact, and health evaluations. Certain serious offenses are excluded unless the prosecution agrees that relief serves the interests of justice and public safety, including specified sex offenses, human trafficking, life-without-parole cases, offenses against very young children, and offenses against first responders.
The bill changes Colorado law by adding a new section to the criminal code governing sentence reconsideration and by creating a special resentencing pathway that is not subject to the usual Rule 35(b) time limits. It also authorizes district attorneys, in cases where the person is otherwise ineligible, to petition for relief on the person’s behalf. The bill requires the Department of Corrections to provide relevant records and risk information upon request and directs the Judicial Department to report annually on petitions, hearings, and resentencings. It also makes appropriations to the public defender and corrections and reduces a separate corrections appropriation tied to jail payments.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill text is supportive of second chances for people who have aged out of risk, while still emphasizing public safety, victim participation, and judicial screening. The legislative declaration frames the measure as balancing long sentences for serious crimes with rehabilitation, reduced recidivism among older adults, and the fiscal and medical costs of aging prison populations. The bill’s structure suggests a reform-oriented approach that is cautious rather than broad, because it limits eligibility, requires proof of low risk, and preserves prosecutorial veto power for certain serious offenses.
The main points of contention likely center on whether the bill goes far enough or too far in allowing resentencing of people serving long sentences for serious crimes. Supporters are likely to emphasize rehabilitation, aging, low reoffense risk, and prison costs, while opponents may focus on public safety, the seriousness of excluded offenses, and the role of prosecutorial consent in some cases. The inclusion of victims’ rights, counsel, evidentiary hearings, and narrow eligibility criteria appears designed to address those concerns and make the process more controlled and transparent.
SB 26-115 adds a new post-conviction relief statute to Colorado law, creating a specialized resentencing mechanism for incarcerated people who were young at the time of the offense or who are age 60 or older and have served at least 20 years. It modifies the normal sentence-reconsideration framework by allowing petitions outside the usual Rule 35(b) time limits, requiring appointed counsel, setting evidentiary standards and hearing procedures, and directing courts to consider a detailed list of rehabilitation, risk, and victim-impact factors. The bill also creates exclusions for certain serious offenses unless the prosecution agrees relief is in the interests of justice and public safety, and it requires annual reporting by the Judicial Department. In addition, it makes appropriations to the public defender and Department of Corrections and reduces a separate corrections appropriation.
The bill appears generally reform-minded and supportive of sentence review for people who have demonstrated rehabilitation after decades in prison, especially older adults and those who were very young when convicted. Its legislative declaration emphasizes public safety, reduced recidivism among aging prisoners, and the fiscal and medical burdens of long incarceration, suggesting a policy rationale that is both humanitarian and pragmatic. At the same time, the bill is structured to reassure skeptics by limiting eligibility, requiring proof of low danger, and preserving victim participation and, in some cases, prosecutorial agreement.
The likely controversy is the balance between second chances and public safety. Supporters would point to rehabilitation, age-related decline in risk, and the high cost of incarcerating older people, while critics may argue that resentencing serious offenders undermines finality and could endanger communities or diminish punishment for grave crimes. The most sensitive provisions are the eligibility rules for serious offenses, the requirement that prosecutors agree in some cases, and the authority for courts to reduce long sentences after a single evidentiary hearing. Victims’ rights and the exclusion of offenses involving children, sex crimes, human trafficking, life-without-parole sentences, and crimes against first responders appear intended to address those concerns.