county jail for each prohibited use of a weapon count, six months in county jail for reckless endangerment, and one year in the county jail for violation of a restraining order. The trial court also ordered defendant to complete two years of work release as a condition of his probation. Defendant thereafter initiated this appeal and, subsequently, violated the terms of his probation. Consequently, while this appeal was pending and without a limited remand, the trial court removed defendant from the work release program, revoked his probation, and sentenced him to four years in communi ty corrections for first degree burglary. The remaining sentences were left intact and concurrent. I. We first address, and reject, defendant’s contention that the trial court lacked jurisdi 2 (Colo.1984) (<HOLDING>). In People v. Taylor, 876 P.2d 130
recognizing that the mcdonnell douglas framework is less useful in the context of an alleged discriminatory disciplinary decision than in the context of an alleged discriminatory hiring decision holding that the irs has a law enforcement purpose in the context of a criminal tax investigation holding same in the flsa retaliation context recognizing that policy considerations and analytical framework in civil context are sometimes persuasive and instructive in criminal context recognizing fiduciary exception in the erisa context