Marquez v. People

• Decision Date: 23 September 2013
• Docket Number: Supreme Court Case No. 11SC55
• Citation: 2013 CO 58
• Parties: Christopher Brian Marquez, Petitioner v. The People of the State of Colorado, Respondent
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

2013 CO 58

Christopher Brian Marquez, Petitioner

v. The People of the State of Colorado, Respondent

Supreme Court Case No. 11SC55

Supreme Court of the State of Colorado

September 23, 2013

Certiorari to the Court of Appeals

Court of Appeals Case No. 08CA2326

Judgment Reversed

en banc

Attorney for Petitioner:

Hopkins Law LLC

James W. Hopkins

Loveland, Colorado

Attorneys for Respondent:

John W. Suthers, Attorney General

Ryan A. Crane, Assistant Attorney General

Denver, Colorado

JUSTICE COATS delivered the Opinion of the Court.

JUSTICE BOATRIGHT concurs in part and dissents in part, and JUSTICE RICE and JUSTICE EID join in the concurrence in part and the dissent in part.

¶1 Marquez sought review of the court of appeals' judgment in People v. Marquez, No. 08CA2326 (Colo. App. Dec. 23, 2010) (not published pursuant to C.A.R. 35(f)), which affirmed the district court's imposition of consecutive sentences for two crime-ofviolence convictions. Finding that both crimes of violence arose out of the same incident, the district court concluded that despite its inclination to do otherwise, it was statutorily required to order the defendant's two crime-of-violence sentences to be served consecutively, and the court of appeals affirmed.

¶2 Because the phrase "arising out of the same incident," as that phrase appears in section 18-1.3-406, C.R.S. (2013), is a reference to, and has the same meaning as, the phrase "arising from the same criminal episode," in section 18-1-408(2), C.R.S. (2013), and because the record in this case establishes that the crimes of violence of which Marquez was convicted were not "based on the same act or series of acts arising from the same criminal episode," as we have previously construed that language in the latter statute, the district court was not required to impose consecutive sentences. Rather, it was not only permitted but in fact required to exercise its discretion concerning the imposition of consecutive or concurrent sentences. The judgment of the court of appeals is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded with directions to return the matter to the district court for resentencing.

I.

¶3 Christopher Brian Marquez was convicted at a single trial of attempted aggravated robbery, a statutorily designated crime of violence; second degree assault, found by the jury to have been committed as a crime of violence under the circumstances of this case; and two counts of felony menacing. Marquez was also found to be an habitual criminal requiring sentences to triple the maximum of the presumptive range for each of his crimes. The district court sentenced Marquez to concurrent terms of imprisonment for his felony menacing convictions, which it also ordered to be served concurrently with his crime-of-violence sentences, but it ordered the defendant's two crime-of-violence sentences to be served consecutively. After concluding that both crimes of violence were committed as part of a single "crime spree," the district court felt compelled by the statutory provisions governing habitual criminals and multiple crimes of violence arising out of the same incident to impose consecutive 48-year sentences.

¶4 There was evidence at trial from which the trier of fact could conclude that on April 21, 2007, about ten minutes after midnight, the defendant approached a man in the restroom of a bar and demanded money or drugs from him. When the man refused, the defendant struck the man in the mouth, breaking his jaw. Within the next forty minutes, approximately two blocks away, the defendant robbed, at gunpoint, a second man of his shoes and cell phone and fled the scene in a van.¹ Some eight hours later and about ten blocks away, the defendant then knocked on a house door and accosted the homeowner with a gun. Finally, after about three more hours and several more blocks away, the defendant entered a home that was under renovation and attempted to rob the man working inside at gunpoint.²

¶5 Marquez raised a number of challenges to his sentence, all of which were rejected by the intermediate appellate court. We granted his petition for a writ of certiorari solely to consider whether the district court erred in concluding that it lacked the discretion to impose concurrent sentences for his two crime-of-violence convictions.

II.

¶6 We have long held that in the absence of legislation to the contrary, sentencing courts in this jurisdiction have the inherent power to order sentences for different convictions to be served either consecutively or concurrently. See Qureshi v. Dist. Court, 727 P.2d 45, 46–47 (Colo. 1986); see also People v. Self, 200 Colo. 406, 408, 615 P.2d 693, 695 (1980) (citing to ABA Standards Relating to Sentencing Alternatives and Procedures). The district court below made clear that it considered its discretion in this regard to be restricted by a provision of section 18-1.3-406(1)(a) of the revised statutes, added in 1985 as part of a broader sentencing Act, which effectively doubled allowable felony sentences and increased terms of parole. See House Bill 85-1320, 1985 Colo. Sess. Laws 647. The provision in question mandated that a "person convicted of two separate crimes of violence arising out of the same incident shall be sentenced for such crimes so that sentences are served consecutively rather than concurrently." Id. (codified at section 16-11-309, C.R.S. (1985)). The particular statutory language at issue has remained unaltered, but for a 1988 amendment expanding the statute's consecutive sentence mandate for "two separate crimes of violence" to include "two or more separate crimes of violence," House Bill 88-148, 1988 Colo. Sess. Laws 679; see also Robles v. People, 811 P.2d 804 (Colo. 1991), and the general reorganization and renumbering of the jurisdiction's sentencing provisions in 2002, House Bill 02-1046, 2002 Colo. Sess. Laws 1365, 1403 (recodified at section 18-1.3-406, C.R.S. (2013)).

¶7 Precisely what constitutes a single "incident" and precisely when two or more crimes of violence must be considered to have arisen out of the same incident are therefore first and foremost matters of statutory interpretation. As we have often indicated, a statute must be interpreted according to the legislative intent expressed in the language actually chosen by the legislature. See Dep't of Transp. v. Gypsum Ranch Co., 244 P.3d 127, 131 (Colo. 2010). Should that language admit of more than one reasonable understanding, it is considered to be ambiguous. Id. In that event, a number of intrinsic and extrinsic aids to construction have developed to assist in resolving the ambiguity and determining which of the various reasonable interpretations is the appropriate one. Id.

¶8 It is widely accepted that where the legislature has not expressly defined a statutory term or otherwise limited its meaning, that term must be given its ordinary meaning. Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan, Ltd., -- U.S. --, 132 S. Ct. 1997, 182 L. Ed. 2d 903 (2012); Robbins v. People, 107 P.3d 384 (Colo. 2005). Because, however, terms frequently have more than one ordinary meaning, or at least more than one shading or nuance of meaning, and because even a dictionary definition broad enough to encompass a particular sense of a word does not establish that the term is ordinarily understood in that sense, Taniguchi, 132 S. Ct. at 2003, the precise meaning embodying legislative intent must often be determined by reference to other considerations, like context and purpose, see Curious Theatre Co. v. Colo. Dep't of Pub. Health & Env't, 220 P.3d 544, 549 (Colo. 2009). In particular we have held that in the absence of some express indication to the contrary, a term or provision that is part of a greater statutory scheme should be interpreted, to the extent possible, harmoniously with the other provisions and purpose of that scheme. Gypsum Ranch Co., 244 P.3d at 131; Frank M. Hall & Co. v. Newsom, 125 P.3d 444, 448 (Colo. 2005); see also Walgreen Co. v. Charnes, 819 P.2d 1039, 1043 & n.6 (Colo. 1991). Often light can be shed on the purpose or motivation behind statutory amendments by considering the timing of those amendments in relation to other historical developments, including judicial interpretations of related aspects of the scheme, Frank M. Hall & Co., 125 P.3d at 448; City of Ouray v. Olin, 761 P.2d 784, 788–89 (Colo. 1988), and even the explanations of sponsors, Vensor v. People, 151 P.3d 1274, 1279 (Colo. 2007) ("While by no means conclusive, the testimony of a bill's sponsor concerning its purpose and anticipated effect can be powerful evidence of legislative intent.").

¶9 The legislature has not statutorily defined "incident" in this context as a term of art. In context, and particularly in light of its choice to modify "incident" by the word "same," there can be little question that the term is intended here in its generally accepted sense of an occurrence considered to be a single, rather than more than one, happening or unit of experience. Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1142 (1976) (defining incident as "an occurrence of an action or situation felt as a separate unit of experience"). As we have frequently observed in the past, however, without reference to a particular organizing principle or objective to be served by treating particular acts, occurrences, or circumstances as a given unit or entity, some rationale can virtually always be devised for combining them in such a manner as to form an even greater unit or, conversely, for segregating them into multiple, even smaller units. See, e.g., Gognat v. Ellsworth, 259 P.3d 497, 502 (Colo. 2011) (assessing whether different pieces of information are related as constituent elements of a single trade secret); In re Title, Ballot Title, & Submission Clause for 2009-2010 No. 91, 235 P.3d 1071, 1077 (Colo. 2010) (assessing whether constitutional initiative included more than one subject); People v. Abiodun, 111 P.3d 462 (Colo. 2005) (assessing whether multiple acts in...