Horton v. Suthers

• Citation: 43 P.3d 611
• Decision Date: 22 January 2002
• Docket Number: No. 00SA58.,00SA58.
• Parties: Ralph D. HORTON, Petitioner-Appellee, v. John SUTHERS, Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellant.
• Court: Supreme Court of Colorado

43 P.3d 611

Ralph D. HORTON, Petitioner-Appellee, v. John SUTHERS, Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellant.

No. 00SA58.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

January 22, 2002.

As Modified on Denial of Rehearing March 4, 2002.

David S. Kaplan, Colorado State Public Defender, Kathleen A. Lord, Chief Appellate Deputy Public Defender, Denver, CO, Attorneys for Petitioner-Appellee.

Ken Salazar, Attorney General, Joseph Sanchez, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Litigation Section, Denver, CO, Attorneys for Respondent-Appellant.

Justice MARTINEZ delivered the opinion of the Court.

The director of the Department of Corrections (director) initiated this appeal following the Crowley County District Court's grant of Ralph Horton's petition for writ of habeas corpus. As discussed below, at the hearing on Horton's petition, the director had agreed with Horton that the Crowley County District Court should both hear the petition and grant the relief requested therein.

We are unpersuaded by the director's assertion on appeal that the Crowley County District Court (the habeas court) did not have jurisdiction to hear Horton's petition and grant the relief requested because Horton was first required to exhaust his remedies pursuant to Crim. P. 35. In reaching this conclusion, we are first required to address the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction, both generally and in the context of the writ of habeas corpus. We then consider the doctrine of exhaustion of legal remedies, and, after reviewing our prior precedent and relevant precedent from other jurisdictions, conclude that the director's exhaustion of remedies argument is not jurisdictional and, as a result, was waivable and in this case actually waived. Finally, we discuss the doctrine of invited error and conclude that the director invited the error by agreeing that Horton was entitled to the relief he requested. Accordingly, we affirm the Crowley County District Court.

I. Facts and Procedure

On October 22, 1997, Horton was convicted in the District Court for the City and County of Denver (the trial court) of the sale or possession of a schedule I or II controlled substance, a class 3 felony. See § 18-18-405(2)(a)(I), 6 C.R.S. (2001). On December 1, 1997, the trial court sentenced Horton to community corrections for two years. After community corrections rejected Horton, the trial court resentenced Horton to two years in the Department of Corrections (DOC). The trial court also granted Horton credit for 205 days of presentence confinement. On February 12, 1998, the trial court amended the mittimus in Horton's case to include the mandatory parole period. Specifically, the mittimus was amended to include the language, "any term of parole authorized by Section CRS 18-1-105(1)(a)(V)."¹ Horton was paroled on February 3, 1999. However, he violated his parole and was thus returned to the DOC on June 3, 1999.

On October 22, 1999, Horton filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Crowley County District Court. Horton's petition claimed that he was entitled to immediate release because, although he had fully served his sentence, the DOC was illegally refusing to release him. More specifically, Horton asserted that he was entitled to immediate release because he had served his entire two-year sentence before his parole was revoked.

The habeas court issued the writ, and a hearing was held on November 2, 1999. In his return to the writ of habeas corpus, and at the habeas corpus hearing, the director argued that the habeas court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction over the case. In support of this argument, the director stated that Horton had previously filed a Crim. P. 35(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence in the trial court, which was still pending at the time of the hearing. The director further contended that the habeas court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because Horton had previously filed a Crim. P. 35(c) motion that had been denied and was on appeal to the court of appeals as No. 98CA94.² The habeas court accepted the director's arguments and denied the writ of habeas corpus on November 3, 1999.

On December 2, 1999, the trial court denied Horton's Crim. P. 35(a) motion on the grounds that it did not have subject-matter jurisdiction over the case because the court of appeals had such jurisdiction.³ Accordingly, Horton filed a motion for reconsideration with the habeas court on December 10, 1999. The director responded to the motion for reconsideration by agreeing with Horton that the habeas court could now properly hear the matter and that the relief sought by Horton was proper. Specifically, the director's response stated:

4. Based on close review of [Horton's] pending appeal before the Colorado Court of Appeals and [Horton's] request for relief upon the petition for writ of habeas corpus before this Court, the issues are not the same. Therefore the [director] agrees with [Horton] that this Court now has jurisdiction to consider the issues addressed in the petition for writ of habeas corpus.

5. Based on C.R.S. § 17-22.5-303 and People v. Mark A. Johnson, 97CA214, the [director] does not object to this Court granting [Horton's] request for relief.

THEREFORE, [the director] does not oppose [Horton's] request for habeas relief.

Relying on the director's representations in the response to the motion to reconsider, the habeas court granted Horton the relief he requested, and on January 19, 2000, ordered the DOC to release him immediately. The director appealed this judgment to us.⁴ For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.

II. Analysis

The director asserts two arguments on appeal. First, he contends that the habeas court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to grant the relief requested in Horton's petition for writ of habeas corpus after the trial court had denied his Crim. P. 35(a) motion. More specifically, the director asserts that a defendant must exhaust all of his legal remedies under Crim. P. 35 before filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Second, he asserts that, if we find that subject-matter jurisdiction was proper in the habeas court, that court erroneously decided the merits of Horton's petition for writ of habeas corpus by granting the relief requested. The director asserts the second argument for the first time in this appeal.

A. Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

Upon Horton's initial filing of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, the director asserted that the habeas court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction. However, in response to Horton's motion to reconsider, the director reversed his position, agreeing with Horton that the habeas court did have jurisdiction. The director further stated that he did not object to the court granting the relief Horton requested, which was immediate release from custody.

1. Subject-Matter Jurisdiction Generally

Subject-matter jurisdiction "concerns `the court's authority to deal with the class of cases in which it renders judgment.'" Closed Basin Landowners Ass'n. v. Rio Grande Water Conservation Dist., 734 P.2d 627, 636 (Colo.1987) (quoting In re Marriage of Stroud, 631 P.2d 168, 170 (Colo. 1981)). A court has subject-matter jurisdiction if "the case is one of the type of cases that the court has been empowered to entertain by the sovereign from which the court derives its authority." Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis, Inc. v. Adams, 718 P.2d 508, 513 (Colo.1986).

The director properly asserts that subject-matter jurisdiction is not an issue waivable by the parties: "Jurisdiction is not conferred or taken away from a court based on the position of a party regarding the court's jurisdiction; instead, jurisdiction concerns the court's authority to decide the class of cases in which it renders judgment and is determined as a matter of law." Winslow Constr. Co. v. City & County of Denver, 960 P.2d 685, 690 (Colo.1998). However, as explained below, the director conflates subject-matter jurisdiction with the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies. Accordingly, the director did not attempt to confer subject-matter jurisdiction upon the habeas court contrary to law, as he now contends. Instead, the director merely waived the opportunity to present the exhaustion of remedies argument he attempts to present in this appeal by agreeing to the relief sought in Horton's habeas petition.

2. Subject-Matter Jurisdiction and the Writ of Habeas Corpus

Contrary to the director's assertion, the habeas court did not lack subject-matter jurisdiction. In fact, all district courts in this state have subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain and decide habeas corpus cases. See § 13-45-101, 5 C.R.S. (2001); Duran v. Price, 868 P.2d 375, 378 (Colo.1994); Stilley v. Tinsley, 153 Colo. 66, 86, 385 P.2d 677, 688 (1963). "Since it is the great writ of freedom in Anglo-American jurisprudence, it is not to be hedged or in any way circumscribed with technical requirements." People ex rel. Wyse v. Dist. Court, 180 Colo. 88, 92, 503 P.2d 154, 156 (1972). Further, the Colorado Constitution provides that "[t]he privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall never be suspended, unless when in case of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it." Colo. Const. art. II, § 21.

There are, however, some limits to the issues that may be raised in a petition for writ of habeas corpus and heard by a habeas court. The sole issue for resolution in a habeas corpus proceeding is whether the petitioner is being unlawfully detained. See, e.g., Graham v. Gunter, 855 P.2d 1384, 1385 (Colo.1993)

. Thus, a habeas court may not "inquire into the legality or justice of a judgment or decree of a court legally constituted, in any other manner." § 13-45-103(3). In other words, a habeas court may only hear matters presented in a properly pleaded petition for habeas,⁵ namely whether the sentence is void or illegal. See Graham, 855 P.2d at 1385; Mulkey v. Sullivan, 753 P.2d 1226, 1232 (Colo...