Keller v. People

• Decision Date: 18 September 2000
• Docket Number: No. 99SC270.,99SC270.
• Citation: 29 P.3d 290
• Parties: Monte Dean KELLER, Petitioner, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Respondent.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

29 P.3d 290

Monte Dean KELLER, Petitioner, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Respondent.

No. 99SC270.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

September 18, 2000.

David S. Kaplan, Colorado State Public Defender, Dana Nichols, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, Colorado, Attorneys for Petitioner.

Jeanne M. Smith, District Attorney, Dan S. Wilson, Deputy District Attorney, Elizabeth A. Kirkman, Deputy District Attorney, David J. Young, Deputy District Attorney, Gordon R. Denison, Deputy District Attorney, Colorado Springs, Colorado, Attorneys for Respondent.

Justice MARTINEZ delivered the Opinion of the Court.

In this case, we determine whether the prosecution may withdraw from a plea agreement in response to a defendant's successful motion for a reduction in sentence made in accordance with the provisions of the "boot camp" statute. See § 17-27.7-104(2), 6 C.R.S. (1999). The People contend, and the court of appeals agreed, that our decision of People ex rel. VanMeveren v. District Court, 195 Colo. 34, 37-38, 575 P.2d 4, 7 (1978), is controlling. We examine the reasoning of VanMeveren and determine that it has been supplanted by more recent decisions of this court and, thus, cannot control the resolution of the issue now before us. Reasoning from settled principles of law, we hold that the prosecution will be permitted to withdraw from a plea agreement that has been accepted by the trial court only if it shows that a reduction in sentence amounts to a material and substantial breach of the plea agreement. Because the plea agreement between the parties to this case did not prohibit the defendant from seeking a reduction in sentence pursuant to section 17-27.7-104(2)(a), the court-ordered reduction in Keller's sentence pursuant to section 17-27.7-104(2)(b) was not a breach of the plea agreement. Absent a showing of breach, the prosecutor may not withdraw from this plea agreement.

I.

In 1996, Monte Dean Keller pleaded guilty to a count of theft, section 18-4-401(2)(c), 6 C.R.S. (1996), and to a separate count of aggravated motor vehicle theft, section 18-4-409(3)(a), 6 C.R.S. (1996). In return for his promise to plead guilty, the People stipulated to an eleven year sentence to the Department of Corrections (DOC) on the aggravated motor vehicle theft charge, which was to run concurrently with an eight year sentence on the theft charge. The plea agreement between the parties was not reduced to writing.

The trial court accepted Keller's pleas of guilty and sentenced him to concurrent terms of eleven and eight years in the DOC. After the court imposed sentence, the district attorney asserted that, by agreeing to a stipulated sentence, Keller had, in effect, waived his right to pursue Crim. P. 35(b) relief. Defense counsel agreed. In their arguments to this court, the People have sought to characterize these statements as an understood part of the plea agreement. However, based on the transcript of the sentencing proceedings and the People's arguments below, we find that there was no express agreement to limit the future availability of Crim. P. 35(b) consideration. Rather, it would appear that the district attorney's post-sentencing remarks merely reflected her belief that a sentence stipulation effectively forecloses Crim. P. 35(b) relief as a matter of law. This view of the district attorney's remarks is supported by the fact that, throughout the course of the proceedings below, the People have contended that our decision in People ex rel. VanMeveren v. District Court, 195 Colo. 34, 37-38, 575 P.2d 4, 7 (1978), compels this very conclusion. In VanMeveren, we held that a district attorney must be permitted to withdraw from a plea agreement when a trial court acts within its discretion to reduce or modify a sentence to imprisonment pursuant to Crim. P. 35(b).¹

On July 11, 1997, the DOC notified Keller of his acceptance into the Regimented Inmate Training Program (RITP), a statutory alternative to imprisonment that allows inmates to participate voluntarily in a military-style boot camp aimed at promoting personal development and self-discipline. See §§ 17-27.7-101 to -102, 6 C.R.S. (1999). Keller enrolled in RITP and, by all accounts, excelled within the program.² After completing the statutorily mandated period of service and training, see § 17-27.7-102(3), Keller was "automatically referred to the sentencing court so that [he could] make a motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to rule 35b of the Colorado rules of criminal procedure." § 17-27.7-104(2)(a), 6 C.R.S. (1999).

The trial court heard Keller's motion for a reduction of sentence on September 29, 1997, and granted the motion that same day. At the hearing, the People objected to the defendant's attempts to secure postconviction relief, arguing that, absent the prosecution's express approval, such relief was barred by VanMeveren. The trial court found the People's reliance on VanMeveren to be misplaced and ruled that Keller's successful participation in the boot camp program merited a three-year reduction in the governing sentence of eleven years. The trial court subsequently denied the People's motion for reconsideration and the People appealed.³

The court of appeals, relying on both VanMeveren and our recent decision in People v. Smith, 971 P.2d 1056 (Colo.1999), held that the trial court had erred by not affording the district attorney the opportunity to withdraw from the plea agreement. See People v. Keller, 985 P.2d 65, 67 (Colo.App.1999)

. Keller petitioned this court for a writ of certiorari. We granted the petition and now reverse the judgment of the court of appeals.⁴

II.

Our analysis commences with an overview of the statutory provisions implementing the boot camp program and proceeds to consider the meaning and operation of section 17-27.7-104(2)(a), the subsection that establishes the process by which participants in the program may petition the sentencing court for a reduction in sentence. We then compare the type of relief provided for under the boot camp statute with that which is available under Crim. P. 35(b) and conclude that section 17-27.7-104(2) establishes a special statutory procedure for seeking a reduction in sentence. The final phase of our analysis concerns our decision in VanMeveren and the inapplicability of its reasoning to the case at bar. We hold that our pronouncements in VanMeveren regarding the prosecution's right to withdraw from an accepted plea agreement after a trial court's grant of sentence reductions pursuant to Crim. P. 35(b) do not extend to sentence reductions ordered pursuant to the boot camp statute.

A.

The legislature established the boot camp program in order to effectuate reductions in the prison population and to promote personal development and self-discipline among felony offenders. See § 17-27.7-101; see also Smith, 971 P.2d at 1060

. The boot camp programs are developed and administered by the DOC in accordance with statutory guidelines. See §§ 17-27.7-102(1), (2). Although the structure and character of individual boot camp programs may and do vary, the statutory scheme demands that every program incorporate certain elements, such as "military-style intensive physical training and discipline" and various educational components. Id. Admittance into the program is selective and participation is limited to nonviolent offenders who are thirty years of age or younger. See § 17-27.7-103(1), 6 C.R.S. (1999). Eligible offenders admitted into the boot camp program must successfully complete a ninety-day training regimen in order to qualify for a sentence reduction pursuant to section 17-27.7-104(2).⁵ The decision whether to grant or deny a motion made pursuant to this section necessarily remains within the sound discretion of the sentencing court. See Smith, 971 P.2d at 1060.

Although section 17-27.7-104(2)(a) references Crim. P. 35(b), our examination of this procedural rule convinces us that the process provided for under section 17-27.7-104(2) is different, both in kind and substance, from that which typically accompanies a Crim. P. 35(b) application for reduction in sentence.⁶ Notably absent from the operative provisions of the boot camp statute are the rigid time limitations set forth under Crim. P. 35(b). Aside from the procedural distinctions outlined in the language of the provisions, the nature of section 17-27.7-104(2) is distinct in that it sets forth a special statutory procedure available only under certain circumstances.

Substantively, the boot camp statute mandates automatic referral to the sentencing court for consideration of sentence reduction within "sixty days of termination or completion of the program." § 17-27.7-104(2)(a). The sixty-day time limit contemplated by section 17-27.7-104(2)(a) does not restrict a defendant's ability to petition for such relief, as does the limitation in Crim. P. 35(b), but rather ensures that the process begins swiftly and advances expeditiously.⁷ This comports with the boot camp statute's specifically stated purpose of "reducing prison overcrowding" and "promoting . . . the personal development and self-discipline" of offenders. § 17-27.7-101. To the extent that the sixty-day time limitation allows successful participants in the program to be immediately rewarded with sentence reductions, it is intended to reinforce positive behaviors and reduce burgeoning prison populations.

Thus, a defendant seeking a reduction in sentence pursuant to Crim. P. 35(b) and one seeking such a reduction pursuant to section 17-27.7-104(2)(a) are in different postures when prosecuting a motion for postconviction relief. Furthermore, judicial review of motions for reduction in sentence made pursuant to Crim. P. 35(b) differs significantly from the special statutorily defined procedures a sentencing court must follow when presented with a motion for reduction of sentence made pursuant to section 17-27.7-104(2)(a). For instance, section 17-27.7-104(2)(b)...