Arnold v. Colorado Dept. of Corrections

• Decision Date: 04 March 1999
• Docket Number: No. 98CA0976,98CA0976
• Citation: 978 P.2d 149
• Parties: 1999 CJ C.A.R. 1361 William T. ARNOLD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and Alexander M. Hunter, in his official capacity as Boulder County District Attorney, Defendants-Appellees. . I
• Court: Colorado Court of Appeals

Page 149

978 P.2d 149

1999 CJ C.A.R. 1361

William T. ARNOLD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and Alexander M. Hunter in his official capacity as Boulder County District Attorney, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 98CA0976.

Colorado Court of Appeals,

Div. I.

March 4, 1999.

Rehearing Denied April 8, 1999.

William T. Arnold, Pro Se

Gale A. Norton, Attorney General, Martha Phillips Allbright, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Richard A. Westfall, Solicitor General, Paul S. Sanzo, First Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Defendants-Appellees

Opinion by Judge CASEBOLT.

Defendant, William T. Arnold, appeals the trial court's summary denial of his Crim. P. 35(c) motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.

Defendant was convicted of second degree burglary and was sentenced to a five-year term in the custody of the Department of Corrections (DOC). In March 1997, he was transferred from a DOC facility in Colorado to the Dickins County Correctional Center, a privately operated facility located in Texas that had contracted with Dickins County to house prisoners. In July 1997, he was transferred to the Karnes County Correctional Center, a privately operated Texas facility that had contracted with Karnes County to house prisoners. In November 1997, he was transferred to the Huerfano County Correctional Center, a privately operated facility in Colorado, where he is currently serving his sentence.

In a "Motion for writ of prohibition and request for issuance of contempt citations and order to show cause," filed in the trial court, defendant made a number of allegations. He asserted that he had been "arrested" by DOC officials and "extradited" to county correctional facilities in Texas without any formal extradition proceedings. He claimed that his transfers to and from the Texas county correctional facilities had not been made pursuant to the Interstate Corrections Compact (ICC), § 24-60-1601, et seq., C.R.S.1998; therefore, he was effectively released from DOC's custody and given an implied pardon or commutation of his sentence, which resulted in a loss of jurisdiction over him. He also asserted that the statutory authority of the DOC Executive Director to contract with other jurisdictions for the confinement of offenders does not include the authority to contract with political subdivisions of other states, and that the contract between the Executive Director and Karnes County, Texas, was invalid such that his confinement pursuant thereto was improper.

In response, the DOC asserted that the transfers were validly made pursuant to the ICC, that defendant had not been pardoned, and that, therefore, Colorado retained its jurisdiction over him.

The trial court treated defendant's motion as a Crim. P. 35(c) motion for post-conviction relief. After finding that defendant had been moved from a Colorado prison to penal institutions in Texas under the ICC, the trial court summarily denied his motion. This appeal followed.

After the appeal was docketed here, we requested the supreme court to accept habeas corpus jurisdiction under § 13-45-101, C.R.S.1998. It declined to do so. Hence, we will treat defendant's motion as being made under Crim. P. 35(c).

I.

Defendant contends the trial court erred in finding that he was transferred to the Texas county correctional facilities pursuant to the ICC, § 24-60-1601, et seq., C.R.S.1998. He asserts that, absent such a transfer, Colorado lost jurisdiction over him. We agree that the trial court incorrectly concluded that the transfer was made pursuant to the ICC; however, we reject the contention that Colorado lost jurisdiction over defendant.

The trial court found that defendant was transferred to the Texas county correctional facilities pursuant to the ICC. However, there is no evidence in the record to support that finding. Instead, the trial court's determination was predicated only upon DOC's argument that such had occurred, without any proof. Furthermore, the ICC relates to agreements between states, not to agreements between a state and a county in another state.

In support of the judgment before us, however, DOC asserts that defendant's transfers were made under contracts negotiated between the Executive Director and the Texas counties pursuant to § 17-1-105(1)(f), C.R.S.1998. Those counties, in turn, had contracted with private parties for the housing of prisoners. Defendant argues here, as he did in the trial court, that the Executive Director does not have authority under that statute to enter into such contracts with political subdivisions of other states. We conclude to the contrary.

Section 17-1-105(1)(f), C.R.S.1998, gives the Executive Director of the DOC the authority to:

enter into contracts and agreements with other jurisdictions, including other states, the federal government, and political subdivisions of this state, for the confinement and maintenance of offenders sentenced to imprisonment by the courts of this state and the authority to reimburse such jurisdictions for the expenses incurred by such jurisdictions in the confinement and maintenance of said offender.

(emphasis added)

Defendant contends the statute limits the Executive Director's authority to contracting with other states, the federal government, and political subdivisions of the state of Colorado. Therefore, he argues, the Executive Director has no authority to enter into contracts with political subdivisions of other states. We are not persuaded.

The interpretation of a statute presents a question of law. Our primary task in construing a statute is to give effect to the intent of the General Assembly by looking first at the language of the statute. See People v. Terry, 791 P.2d 374 (Colo.1990).

Statutes should be interpreted so that no clause, sentence, or word is rendered superfluous, contradictory, or insignificant. Wilson v. People, 747 P.2d 638 (Colo.1987).

Defendant's interpretation of the statute renders the word "including" superfluous by limiting the term "other jurisdictions" only to those jurisdictions expressly listed. However, the word 'include' is ordinarily used as a word of extension or enlargement and is not definitionally equivalent to the word "mean." Graven v. Vail Associates, Inc., 909 P.2d 514 (Colo.1995); People v. Pipkin, 762 P.2d 736 (Colo.App.1988).

By use of the word "including," the General Assembly intended that "other states, the federal government and political subdivisions of this state" are examples of "other jurisdictions" with whom the Executive Director may contract, and are not limitations on that contracting authority. See Graven v. Vail Associates, Inc., supra ; People v. Pearson, 190 Colo. 313, 546 P.2d 1259 (1976). Had the General Assembly wished to so limit the Executive Director's contracting authority, it could have omitted "including" and specified "other jurisdictions" as meaning only "other states, the federal government, and political subdivisions of this state." See § 17-1-105(1)(f), C.R.S.1998; People v. Owens, 670 P.2d 1233 (Colo.1983).

We hold that "other jurisdictions," as defined in § 17-1-105(1)(f), C.R.S.1998, includes political subdivisions of other states. Hence, the Executive Director had authority to enter into contracts with counties of other states.

II.

Defendant contends that neither Karnes County nor Dickins County had the authority under Texas law to enter into contracts with the Executive Director for the confinement of inmates convicted of Colorado offenses. We disagree.

Tex. Admin. Code tit. 37, § 297.14 (1998) provides in pertinent part:

(a) The only entities, other than the state, that are authorized to operate a correctional facility to house in this state, inmates convicted of offenses against the laws of another state of the United States are: (1) a county or municipality; and (2) a private vendor operating a correctional facility under a contract with a county....

(b) A private vendor operating a correctional facility in this state may not enter into a contract for housing out-of-state inmates. A county commissioners court or the governing body of a municipality may enter into a contract with another state or a jurisdiction in another state for housing out-of-state inmates.

(emphasis added)

Therefore, both Karnes and Dickins counties had the authority to enter into contracts with the Executive Director for the confinement of inmates convicted of Colorado offenses.

Here, the only agreement in the record is one between the Executive Director and Karnes county, and it is signed by the county commissioners court of that county. Accordingly, it is a permissible agreement under Texas law.

Because the record does not contain the Dickins county agreement, we decline to address any other contention concerning it.

III.

Defendant next contends that, because the contract between the Executive Director and Karnes County was invalid, his confinement pursuant thereto was improper. Because the trial court summarily denied his motion without making any findings, we are unable effectively to review his contention. Therefore, a remand is necessary.

A Crim. P. 35(c) motion may be summarily denied if the motion, the files, and the record clearly establish that the allegations presented are without merit and do not warrant post-conviction relief, the motion and the record present only issues of law, or the motion fails to assert facts that, if true, would support a constitutional claim. See People v. Rodriguez, 914 P.2d 230 (Colo.1996).

Here, defendant provided numerous documents to the trial court in connection with his motion....