484 P.2d 792 (Colo. 1971), C--33, Martinez v. People

Docket Nº:C--33.
Citation:484 P.2d 792, 174 Colo. 365
Opinion Judge:DAY, Justice.
Party Name:Mary Jane MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Respondent.
Attorney:George A. Hinshaw, Aurora, for petitioner., No appearance for respondent. [174 Colo. 366] George A. Hinshaw, Aurora, for petitioner.
Judge Panel:PRINGLE, C.J., dissenting.
Case Date:April 26, 1971
Court:Supreme Court of Colorado

Page 792

484 P.2d 792 (Colo. 1971)

174 Colo. 365

Mary Jane MARTINEZ, Petitioner,

v.

PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Respondent.

No. C--33.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc

April 26, 1971

Casemaker Note: Portions of this opinion were specifically rejected by a later court in 589 P.2d 483

Page 793

[174 Colo. 366] George A. Hinshaw, Aurora, for petitioner.

No appearance for respondent.

DAY, Justice.

Defendant-Petitioner, Mary Jane Martinez, was charged with a series of violations of municipal ordinances and state laws in connection with an automobile accident which occurred on June 22, 1969. Pertinent to this appeal were a charge, and subsequent conviction, in Aurora municipal court of a violation of Aurora Municipal Ordinance § 11--18--4, careless driving; and a charge, and subsequent conviction, in Arapahoe county court, of a violation of 1967 Perm.Supp., C.R.S.1963, 13--5--30, driving under the influence of alcohol. The conviction in the county court on the charge of 'driving under the influence' was appealed to the district court of Arapahoe County which held that evidence of the earlier conviction for careless driving in the Aurora municipal court did not preclude the county court conviction.

[174 Colo. 367] Certiorari was granted by this court on the issues which we discuss below. We note that no responsive pleadings were filed by the people, either in response to the Petition for Certiorari, or in answer to defendant's brief on appeal.

I.

The defendant first alleges that the Arapahoe county court was without jurisdiction to try the charge of driving under the influence, inasmuch as the statute under which she was charged, 1967 Perm.Supp., C.R.S.1963, 13--5--30, had been repealed after the alleged violation but prior to trial. We find this argument to be without merit. The language of the general saving clause contained in C.R.S.1963, 135--1--7, is as follows:

'Penalties and liabilities not released by repeal.--The repeal, revision, amendment or consolidation of any statute or part of a statute or section or part of a section of any statute, shall not have the effect to release, extinguish, alter, modify or change in whole or in part any penalty, forfeiture or liability, either civil or criminal, which shall have been incurred under such statute, unless the repealing, revising, amending or consolidating act shall so expressly provide; and such statute or part of a statute or section or part of a section of a statute so repealed, amended or revised, shall be treated, and held as still remaining in force for the purpose of sustaining any and all proper actions, suits, proceedings and...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP