Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
People v. Ping Ping Wu
Citations: 894 P.2d 40; 19 Brief Times Rptr. 84; 1995 Colo. App. LEXIS 14; 1995 WL 32852Docket: No. 93CA1329
Court: Colorado Court of Appeals; January 25, 1995; Colorado; State Appellate Court
Defendant Ping Ping Wu appeals his conviction for theft by receiving stolen goods valued at $365.46, as well as the denial of his post-conviction relief motion. The court affirms both the conviction and the denial of relief. Wu argues that the trial court erred by classifying his offense as a class 4 felony instead of a class 2 misdemeanor based on a beneficial change in the law regarding the value of stolen goods. However, the court determines that the amendment to the theft statute, which changed the classification for goods valued between $100 and $400, became effective upon the Governor's signature on April 10, 1992, which occurred after Wu's offense on March 29, 1992. The court cites the precedent set in Tacorante v. People, affirming that the effective date of a statute requiring the Governor's approval is the date of that approval, not the date of legislative passage. Additionally, Wu's motion for post-conviction relief, alleging newly discovered evidence regarding a possibly altered tape recording, is denied. The court emphasizes that the burden is on the defendant to demonstrate diligence in discovering evidence prior to trial, which Wu failed to do, as he was provided a copy of the tape before the trial began and was present during the recorded conversation. Therefore, the court finds no abuse of discretion in denying Wu's motion for post-conviction relief. The judgment and order are affirmed.