Corina gerety denver

Book an appointment for free. What's your insurance plan? Out-of-network for Corina Lohrman, NP. What's the reason for your visit? Has the patient seen this doctor before? Connect from your computer or phone. Learn more. Select an available time. Continue booking. Overall rating. Check your insurance coverage. BlueCross BlueShield.

Patient reviews All reviews have been submitted by patients after seeing the provider. Wait time. Bedside manner. Your trust is our top concern, so providers can't pay to alter or remove reviews. We also don't publish reviews that contain any private patient health information. Learn more here. Corina was incredibly kind and helpful! I'm thankful I found her. October 14, Anna W. Verified patient Video visit. Markson , Jr. Lucero to resolve alleged attorney violations of the professional rules of conduct.

Gerety earned her B. DeSouchet trial advocacy award. Since her arrival at the University of Denver, Gerety has studied empirical research methods and completed a graduate certificate in International Studies at the Josef Korbel School.

A statutory provision requiring, as here, that a decision of a court "be entered or filed within a definite time has generally been considered directory. State Comp. Such provisions are not jurisdictional unless a contrary intent is clearly expressed. Statutory time limitations are generally categorized as directory, not jurisdictional, unless time is of the essence, the statute contains negative language denying exercise of authority beyond the time period prescribed, or disregarding the relevant provision would injure public or private rights.

Id; see People v. Osorio, P. The statute at issue does not contain language that precludes the court's action after the indicated time period. Further, we reject defendant's contentions that the inclusion of a time period for the court's action and the fact that section 5 does not expressly provide for a court's extension of that time period make the provision "jurisdictional in nature. People in Interest of D. We further conclude that any violations of the statute did not injure any public or private right.

Defendant has not indicated that he was affected in any way by the timing of the proceedings. At the January probation revocation hearing, defendant admitted violations of the terms and conditions of his probation. At the February hearing, he did not ask the court to reinstate his probation but, instead, argued for a community corrections placement against the prosecutor's argument for prison time.

Further, he received credit against his DOC sentence for the time spent in custody. Reversal is not warranted where defendant consented to a hearing outside the time period specified by statute and there is no showing that the timing affected the fairness of the proceeding or cast doubt on the reliability of its outcome.

Defendant next contends that his aggravated range sentence is unconstitutional under Blakely v. Washington, U. New Jersey, U. Our supreme court and divisions of this court have addressed this contention and rejected it. See, e. People, P. Nunn, P. United States, U. We will not reach a contrary conclusion.

Here, the trial court unmistakably identified defendant's prior felony conviction as a basis for imposing an aggravated range sentence, which is sufficient to survive a Blakely challenge. See DeHerrera v. Defendant also contends the court abused its discretion by imposing an aggravated range sentence.