People in Interest of Maddox v. District Court of Eighteenth Judicial Dist. In and For Arapahoe County, 79SA213
Decision Date | 16 July 1979 |
Docket Number | No. 79SA213,79SA213 |
Citation | 597 P.2d 573,198 Colo. 208 |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, In the Interest of Joseph Allen MADDOX, a Child and Rose Maddox, Respondent, Petitioners, v. DISTRICT COURT OF the EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT In and For the COUNTY OF ARAPAHOE, State of Colorado, and Richard L. Kaylor, the duly elected, qualified and acting District Judge, Respondents. |
Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Milo N. Gonser, Leslie J. Hilton, Jr., Lakewood, for petitioners.
Robert R. Gallagher, Jr., Dist. Atty., James J. Peters, Deputy Dist. Atty., Littleton, for respondents.
The petitioners, Joseph Maddox (Maddox) and Rose Maddox, brought this original proceeding to prohibit the Arapahoe County District Court from considering the People's petition to modify or revoke Maddox' probation. We issued a rule to show cause and now discharge that rule.
On February 23, 1977, the Arapahoe County District Court (Arapahoe Court) adjudicated Maddox a juvenile delinquent after finding that he had committed aggravated robbery and menacing. He was put on probation for two years and placed in the custody of the Arapahoe County Department of Social Services. Maddox was subsequently placed at the Colorado Boys Ranch, from which he fled in October, 1977. Thereafter, the Arapahoe Court was informed of the probation violation and issued a bench warrant for Maddox' arrest.
Maddox was arrested and brought before the Arapahoe Court on February 15, 1979. At that time, the People advised the court that Maddox and his mother had been living in Denver and moved to change venue to the Denver Juvenile Court. The court ordered a change of venue for purposes of supervision and remanded Maddox to Denver Juvenile Hall.
On February 20, 1979, the Denver Juvenile Court held a hearing at which it determined that the documentation necessary to effect the transfer from Arapahoe County was incomplete and that no grounds for detention were shown. It ordered Maddox to contact the Arapahoe County authorities and released him to the custody of his mother.
As a result of the Denver Juvenile Court's order, the prosecution moved the Arapahoe Court to vacate its order which had transferred venue for the purpose of supervision to the Denver Juvenile Court. The court did so after a hearing on February 22, 1979. At that time, the court also granted the People leave to file a petition for revocation or modification of probation and set a hearing for February 27, 1979, to advise Maddox of his rights regarding that petition. The petition was filed on that date; Maddox moved to dismiss the petition, which motion was subsequently denied.
Maddox contests the jurisdiction of the Arapahoe Court to consider the petition to revoke or modify on two bases: first, that the change of venue to the Denver Juvenile Court deprived the Arapahoe Court of jurisdiction to act further until the Denver Juvenile Court transferred venue back to Arapahoe County; second, that the failure of the People to file the petition for revocation or modification of probation within the two-year period of probation precludes the consideration of such a petition because the probation period had expired.
Maddox' first contention is that the transfer of venue for supervision to the Denver Juvenile Court precluded the subsequent exercise of jurisdiction by the Arapahoe Court. The venue and jurisdiction provisions of the Children's Code are set forth in article 1 of title 19, C.R.S. 1973. Section 19-1-105(1)(b), C.R.S. 1973, states:
(Emphasis added.)
This case falls within the purview of the underscored sentence.
We note that the Arapahoe Court granted the prosecution's motion to change venue to Denver County for supervision of the juvenile. However, once the child has been adjudicated delinquent, as here, the terms of the statute do not provide for a change of venue, but only for transfer of jurisdiction. This is in accord with the general state of the law. A change of venue is properly a pretrial motion to have the merits of the action adjudicated in the correct forum and county. See, for example, City of Cripple Creek v. Johns, 177 Colo. 443, 494 P.2d 823 (1972); Slinkard v. Jordan, 131 Colo. 144, 279 P.2d 1054 (1955); 77 Am.Jur.2d Venue § 1. Accordingly, such a motion is untimely if the merits have already been adjudicated in their entirety.
The merits of a juvenile delinquency proceeding are concluded with the determination that the allegations in the original petition are true and the finding that the child is a juvenile delinquent. No provision for a subsequent change of venue is made in section 19-1-105(1)(b), C.R.S. 1973, because no further adjudication on the merits is required. All that remains is the supervision of the juvenile as a delinquent.
The prosecution and the court thus misspoke in phrasing the motion and the order in terms of venue. Under the statute, the appropriate order would have been a transfer of jurisdiction to Denver for further proceedings, I. e., to supervise Maddox.
The crux of the issue is whether the attempted transfer of the case to the Denver Juvenile Court divested the Arapahoe Court of its jurisdiction.
Once a court takes jurisdiction of an action, it thereafter has exclusive jurisdiction of the subjects and matters ancillary thereto. Utilities Board of the City of Lamar v. Southeast Colorado Power Association, 171 Colo. 456, 468 P.2d 36 (1970). Thus, had the Denver Juvenile Court taken jurisdiction in ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Sequin
... ... No. 79SA69 ... Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc ... March 31, 1980 ... Dist. Atty., Loren B. Schall, Asst. Dist. Atty., Fort ... 450, 568 P.2d 29 (1977). A judicial declaration that a statute is overbroad on its ... 17 (1918). The state has a legitimate interest in controlling harmful, constitutionally ... People in the Interest of Maddox v. District Court, Colo., 597 P.2d 573 (1979); ... ...
-
Estates in Eagle Ridge v. Valley Bank, No. 03CA2270.
... ... No. 03CA2270 ... Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. IV ... July 28, 2005 ... district court concluded that notice to plaintiffs of ... trust for certain property to the Larimer County public trustee for the benefit of Valley Bank to ... plaintiffs failed to make payments of interest and principal on the note, Valley Bank commenced ... Vail/Arrowhead, Inc. v. Dist. Court, 954 P.2d 608 (Colo.1998). Entry of ... Cf. People ex rel. Maddox v. Dist. Court, 198 Colo. 208, -12, 597 P.2d 573, 575 (1979)(Arapahoe County District Court not required to defer to ... ...
-
Dawson By and Through McKelvey v. Public Employees' Retirement Ass'n
... ... No. 81SA187 ... Supreme Court of Colorado, ... May 31, 1983 ... Page 703 ... (PERA), appeals a judgment of the district court affirming a decision of the PERA Retirement ... to a legitimate governmental interest to survive an equal protection challenge under ... 10), sought judicial review in the Denver District Court on the basis ... E.g., People in the Interest of Maddox v. District Court, 198 ... for in this section beyond the child's eighteenth birthday in lieu of receiving the widow's benefit ... ...
-
Department of Transp. v. Auslaender
... ... No. 03CA0152 ... Colorado Court" of Appeals, Div. III ... June 3, 2004. \xC2" ... Bd. of County Comm'rs, 105 Colo. 366, 368, 98 P.2d 283, 285 ... See Mesa County Valley Sch. Dist. No. 51 v. Kelsey, 8 P.3d 1200, 1206 (Colo.2000) ... and matters ancillary thereto.'" (quoting People ex rel. Maddox v. Dist. Court, 198 Colo. 208, ... to administrative proceedings subject to judicial review, without a prior hearing in the trial ... ...
-
ARTICLE 2 THE COLORADO JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM
...the felony escape statute. People v. Young, 908 P.2d 1147 (Colo. App. 1995). Applied in People in Interest of Maddox v. Dist. Court, 198 Colo. 208, 597 P.2d 573 (1979). ■ 19-2-105. Venue. (1) (a) Proceedings in cases brought under this article shall be commenced in the county in which the a......
-
ARTICLE 2.5
...the felony escape statute. People v. Young, 908 P.2d 1147 (Colo. App. 1995). Applied in People in Interest of Maddox v. Dist. Court, 198 Colo. 208, 597 P.2d 573 (1979). ■ 19-2.5-104. Venue. (1) (a) Proceedings in cases brought pursuant to this article 2.5 must be commenced in the county in ......