Colorado Dept. of Corrections v. Madison, 03SA14.

• Decision Date: 01 March 2004
• Docket Number: No. 03SA14.,03SA14.
• Parties: COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, PAROLE DIVISION, by and through the Executive Director, Jeannie MILLER, and Sheriff of the City and County of Denver, Fred Olivia, State of Colorado, Respondents-Appellants, v. William MADISON, Petitioner-Appellee.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

85 P.3d 542

COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, PAROLE DIVISION, by and through the Executive Director, Jeannie MILLER, and Sheriff of the City and County of Denver, Fred Olivia, State of Colorado, Respondents-Appellants, v. William MADISON, Petitioner-Appellee.

No. 03SA14.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

March 1, 2004.

Ken Salazar, Attorney General, Joseph P. Sanchez, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, Attorneys for Respondents-Appellants.

Gary D. Fielder, Westminster, Colorado, Attorney for Petitioner-Appellee.

Jane Hazen, Denver, Colorado, Attorney for Amicus Curiae Colorado Criminal Defense Bar.

Justice MARTINEZ delivered the Opinion of the Court.

In this case, we consider an appeal brought by the Colorado Department of Corrections challenging the Denver District Court's interpretation of section 17-2-103(7), 6 C.R.S. (2003). The district court interpreted section 17-2-103(7) to require that a parolee may be held in custody pending a revocation hearing for only thirty days after his arrest, even though the revocation hearing may be continued beyond thirty days and held after a parolee's temporary release. In rendering its ruling, the court relied on dicta contained within two cases, Turman v. Buckallew, 784 P.2d 774 (Colo.1989), and Goetz v. Gunter, 830 P.2d 1154 (Colo.App.1992). Upon a review of the court's reliance on the dicta of Turman and Goetz, and following an evaluation of the plain meaning of section 17-2-103(7), we disagree with the district court's interpretation of the statute. Accordingly, we hold that, in the context of section 17-2-103(7), upon a finding of good cause by the parole board, a parole revocation hearing can be delayed beyond thirty days after the parolee's arrest and a parolee can be held in custody for a reasonable time pending the revocation hearing. Thus, we reverse.

I. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW

On November 30, 2002, William Madison was placed on parole by the Colorado Department of Corrections (DOC). That same day, Madison was charged with violating a variety of Denver municipal ordinances and was detained in the Denver County Jail. As a result of this arrest, a parole hold was placed on Madison.

On December 2, 2002, Madison's parole officer filed a complaint with the parole board alleging that Madison had violated his parole by committing new criminal offenses. A parole revocation hearing was set for December 19, 2002. At the hearing, Madison's parole officer requested a continuance pursuant to section 17-2-103(12). Section 17-2-103(12) states that a parole officer shall request that a parole revocation proceeding be continued until a disposition is reached in the underlying criminal case(s).¹ Over Madison's objection, the hearing officer granted the parole officer's request and continued the hearing to February 20, 2003.

On December 31, 2002, Madison filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging that his incarceration was illegal. Madison asserted that his parole revocation hearing was not held within the thirty-day time period mandated by section 17-2-103(7). Subsection (7) states that if a parolee is in custody,

the hearing on revocation shall be held within a reasonable time, not to exceed thirty days after the parolee was arrested; except that the board may grant a delay when it finds good cause to exist therefor.

Madison argued that his continued incarceration was illegal because his revocation hearing had not been held within thirty days of his arrest. The district court initially disagreed and dismissed Madison's petition after finding that pending criminal charges constituted good cause to extend the hearing beyond thirty days.

Subsequently, Madison filed a motion for reconsideration and requested a hearing to determine whether he was subject to an illegal incarceration. The court granted Madison's motion and held a short hearing. Upon reconsideration, the court, relying on Turman and Goetz, ordered Madison released. The court agreed with Madison's argument that a parolee may be held in custody pending a revocation hearing for only thirty days, even though the revocation hearing may be continued beyond thirty days and held after the parolee's release.

Although the municipal court charges against Madison were subsequently dismissed and the parole revocation complaint withdrawn,² the DOC appealed, challenging the district court's interpretation of section 17-2-103(7).

II. ANALYSIS

We first discuss the DOC's interpretation of section 17-2-103(7) and the discretion the parole board has in deciding whether to continue a parolee's revocation hearing. Next we address the district court's ruling in this matter. Specifically, we discuss the district court's reliance on the dicta of two cases, Turman and Goetz. By focusing on the dicta of Turman and Goetz, the court ignored the plain language of section 17-2-103(7). We conclude that the plain meaning of section 17-2-103(7) provides that, upon a finding of good cause by the parole board, a parole revocation hearing can be delayed beyond thirty days after the parolee's arrest and a parolee can be held in custody for a reasonable time pending the revocation hearing.

A. PAROLE BOARD DISCRETION IN DELAYING REVOCATION HEARINGS

In its appeal to this court, the DOC seemingly interprets section 17-2-103(7) to denote that anytime a parolee is charged with a crime, there exists automatic good cause to delay the revocation hearing and hold the parolee pending resolution of the underlying criminal case. The DOC argues that the district court erred by releasing Madison because the parole board was required to continue Madison's revocation hearing and detain him until a resolution was reached in his underlying municipal court case. We do not agree. Various sections of the parole revocation statute afford the parole board discretion to determine whether good cause exists to continue a revocation hearing.

Section 17-2-103.5 details the only instances in which the parole board is required to delay a revocation hearing. In section 17-2-103.5, the General Assembly lists specific offenses for which a parole officer must file a parole revocation complaint and the parole board must delay the revocation hearing as long as criminal charges are pending and no technical violations have been alleged. These specific offenses include possession of a deadly weapon, or being charged with: a felony, a crime of violence as defined in section 16-1-104(8.5), a misdemeanor assault involving a deadly weapon or resulting in bodily injury to the victim, or sexual assault in the third degree as defined in section 18-3-404. § 17-2-103.5(1)(a)(I)-(II). The parole board must delay a revocation hearing pending a disposition in the underlying criminal case only when a parolee has been arrested for committing one or more of these limited offenses and no technical violations have been alleged. See § 17-2-103.5(1)(c). However, if technical violations have indeed been alleged, the parole board need not continue the revocation hearing. Thus, the statute recognizes that there are circumstances in which the board should proceed with a hearing even when one of the serious charges listed in section 17-2-103.5 is pending. Only under limited conditions does the parole board lack any discretion and must continue a revocation hearing.

In addition to section 17-2-103.5, subsections within section 17-2-103 also suggest that the parole board has discretion when determining whether good cause exists to delay a revocation hearing. Section 17-2-103(9)(a) indicates that when the violation of parole consists of a pending criminal charge, the parole board may hold the revocation hearing before the case has been resolved in criminal court. As section 17-2-103(9)(a) states, "testimony given before the board in a parole revocation proceeding shall not be admissible in such criminal proceeding before a court." Hence, section 17-2-103(9)(a) implies that the parole board may proceed with a hearing even when criminal charges are pending.

Section 17-2-103(12) offers the parole board additional discretion in determining whether to continue a revocation hearing. Subsection (12) states that when a parolee has been arrested by a law enforcement officer and is being detained in a county jail, a parole officer shall advise the parole board of the pending criminal action and shall request that the revocation hearing be deferred pending the disposition of the criminal charge. Only the parole officer has specific duties under section 17-2-103(12); the parole board maintains discretion in determining whether to continue the hearing or not. Because under section 17-2-103(12) the parole board is not required to delay the revocation hearing, the parole board may decide whether it is appropriate to continue a parolee's revocation hearing.

Because Madison had not been arrested for committing one of the specific offenses listed in section 17-2-103.5(1)(a)(I)-(II), the parole board had discretion to decide whether good cause existed to continue Madison's revocation hearing and detain him beyond thirty days after his arrest. Thus, the DOC's broad interpretation of section 17-2-103(7)—that anytime a parolee is charged with a crime, there exists automatic good cause to delay the revocation hearing and hold the parolee pending resolution of the underlying criminal case—is not convincing.

Having explained our disagreement with the DOC's interpretation of section 17-2-103(7), we next discuss the district court's treatment of the statute in rendering its ruling on Madison's petition for writ of habeas corpus.

B. DISTRICT COURT RULING

The plain language of section 17-2-103(7) dictates the procedures that must be followed when a parolee is in custody and is awaiting a revocation hearing. However, in rendering its decision in this case, the district court failed to evaluate the controlling language of section 17-2-103(7) and instead relied upon dicta in Turman and Goe...