People v. Bostelman

• Decision Date: 08 December 2005
• Docket Number: No. 04CA1223.,04CA1223.
• Citation: 141 P.3d 891
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Deitrich Franz BOSTELMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Colorado Court of Appeals

141 P.3d 891

The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Deitrich Franz BOSTELMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04CA1223.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. I.

December 8, 2005.

Certiorari Granted August 28, 2006.^*

John W. Suthers, Attorney General, Matthew D. Grove, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jonathan D. Reppucci, LLC, Jonathan D. Reppucci, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant.

WEBB, J.

Defendant, Deitrich Franz Bostelman, appeals the trial court's order denying his Crim. P. 35(c) motion for postconviction relief and a separate order granting the People's motion for revocation. We affirm.

The People alleged that defendant committed a burglary eight days before his fourteenth birthday. They direct filed this charge in district court shortly after defendant turned fourteen. Defendant pled guilty to the burglary and received a twelve-year Department of Corrections (DOC) sentence, suspended on the condition that he successfully complete a six-year sentence in the Youthful Offender System (YOS).

Later, the People moved for revocation because defendant had not complied with the minimum YOS requirements. In response, defendant filed a Crim. P. 35(c) motion challenging the district court's jurisdiction because he had committed the burglary before turning fourteen. The trial court denied the motion, revoked defendant's YOS sentence, and imposed the twelve-year DOC sentence.

I.

Defendant first contends the trial court lacked jurisdiction under the direct filing statute, § 19-2-517(1)(a)(IV), C.R.S.2005, because he was thirteen years old when he allegedly committed the crime on which the People direct filed in district court, although he was fourteen years old when he was charged. We disagree.

Statutory interpretation is a question of law that appellate courts review de novo. Hendricks v. People, 10 P.3d 1231 (Colo.2000). When construing statutes, a court's primary purpose is to effectuate the General Assembly's intent. To determine that intent, courts first look to the statutory language, giving words and phrases their commonly accepted meaning. People v. Renfro, 117 P.3d 43 (Colo.App.2004).

If the statute is unambiguous, we look no further. Hensley v. Tri-QSI Denver Corp., 98 P.3d 965 (Colo.App.2004). We rely on statutory construction principles only when the statute is ambiguous. Coffman v. Colo. Common Cause, 102 P.3d 999 (Colo. 2004).

We construe a statute as a whole in order to give "consistent, harmonious and sensible effect to all its parts." Bd. of County Comm'rs v. Costilla County Conservancy Dist., 88 P.3d 1188, 1192 (Colo.2004). We avoid constructions that render any part of a statute meaningless, In re Estate of Hall, 948 P.2d 539 (Colo.1997); that create a conflict between statutes, Lobato v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 105 P.3d 220 (Colo.2005); or that lead to an illogical or absurd result. Colo. Water Conservation Bd. v. Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy Dist., 109 P.3d 585 (Colo.2005).

If statutory language permits alternative constructions, we may also consider the legislative history. L.E.L. Constr. v. Goode, 867 P.2d 875 (Colo.1994); see also § 2-4-203, C.R.S.2005. We then construe the statute to serve the legislative purpose underlying its enactment. Coffman v. Colo. Common Cause, supra.

Section 19-2-517(1)(a)(IV) provides:

(1)(a) A juvenile may be charged by the direct filing of an information in the district court or by indictment only when:

...

(IV) The juvenile is fourteen years of age or older, has allegedly committed a delinquent act that constitutes a felony, and has previously been subject to proceedings in district court as a result of a direct filing pursuant to this section or a transfer pursuant to section 19-2-518; except that, if a juvenile is found not guilty in the district court of the prior felony or any lesser included offense, the subsequent charge shall be remanded back to the juvenile court.

(Emphasis added.)

A.

Defendant argues that § 19-2-517(1)(a)(IV) requires a juvenile to have been fourteen years old when the crime on which the prosecutor direct files in district court was committed. The People respond that a juvenile need only be fourteen years old when charged in district court. In our view, the statute is susceptible of both interpretations, but we conclude the statutory language favors the People's interpretation, which was adopted by the trial court.

At oral argument, both parties acknowledged that the legislative history provides no guidance for interpreting the age fourteen limit in § 19-2-517, C.R.S.2005.

The plain language of § 19-2-517(1)(a)(IV) allows a juvenile to be charged in district court if the juvenile (1) is at least fourteen years old; (2) has allegedly committed a felony; and (3) was previously subject to a district court proceeding. This language does not require that the juvenile have been fourteen years old when either he or she committed the felony or was subject to the previous district court proceeding.

Other subsections of § 19-2-517(1)(a) describe the first condition in identical language ("the juvenile is fourteen years of age or older") and include different crimes as conditions on direct filing. See § 19-2-517(1)(a)(I), (II)(A)-(D), (V), C.R.S.2005. But likewise these subsections do not require that the juvenile have been age fourteen when the crime was committed.

In contrast, another subsection, concerning sentencing, applies "if the juvenile is less than sixteen years of age at the time of commission of the crime." Section 19-2-517(3)(a)(III), C.R.S.2005. A similar phrase appears in § 19-2-518(4)(b)(XII) and (XIII), C.R.S.2005, concerning transfers under § 19-2-518. This language shows that the General Assembly was aware it could require a juvenile to be a certain age when the crime is committed. See People in Interest of C.A.G., 903 P.2d 1229 (Colo.App.1995) (a court is not permitted to add an important limitation or qualification to a statute).

Hence, based on the absence of "at the time of commission of the crime" language in § 19-2-517(1)(a)(IV), we discern no legislative intent that the age fourteen limit should apply to the date the juvenile committed the crime being direct filed. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Smith, 902 P.2d 1386 (Colo.1995) (use of materially different language in statutory subsections indicates that General Assembly did not intend identical results).

Applying the age limit in § 19-2-517(1)(a)(IV) to the time the juvenile is charged by direct filing finds support in People v. Davenport, 43 Colo.App. 41, 602 P.2d 871 (1979). There, a division of this court interpreted an earlier version of the direct filing statute, then numbered § 19-1-104(4)(b), which provided:

A child may be charged with the commission of a felony only after the hearing as provided in paragraph (a) of this subsection (4), or when the child is:

(I) Alleged to have committed a crime of violence defined by § 18-1-105, C.R.S. 1973, as a class I felony, and is fourteen years of age or older ....

(Emphasis added.)

The defendant in Davenport conceded that he was fourteen when the indictment was filed, but argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction because he was ultimately convicted of a lesser offense. The Davenport division disagreed, concluding that the words "charged" and "alleged" in the statute show that the General Assembly intended the indictment, and not the subsequent conviction, to determine juvenile court and district court jurisdiction.

Similarly, the current § 19-2-517(1)(a)(IV) sets forth the conditions under which a juvenile may be "charged" in district court, including the condition that the juvenile has "allegedly" committed a certain type of crime. Thus, we conclude this language focuses on the indictment or information, not the crime.

Defendant argues that applying the age limit to the time of the information or indictment, rather than to the commission of the crime, would conflict with People v. Trujillo, 983 P.2d 124 (Colo.App.1999). We are not persuaded.

In Trujillo, the division interpreted § 19-2-517(1)(a)(III), C.R.S.2005, which provides that a juvenile may be charged by the direct filing of an information in the district court when "[t]he juvenile has, within the two previous years, been adjudicated a juvenile delinquent ... is sixteen years of age or older, and allegedly has committed a [specified] crime." The defendant argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction because, although he had committed the current offenses within two years of his delinquency adjudication, the People did not file the information within two years of that adjudication.

The Trujillo division disagreed, concluding that the two-year period should be measured from the date of the previous adjudication to the date of the current offense, not the later date when the People filed the information based on that offense. The division explained that focusing on the defendant's conduct, rather than on the People's charging decision, furthered the legislative goal of discouraging recidivism by "giving juveniles a concrete period within which to reform their behavior and ensuring that the date of the triggering event for the subsequent offense is within their control." People v. Trujillo, supra, 983 P.2d at 126.

Section 19-2-517 must be interpreted consistently with the legislative declaration in the Children's Code, which recognizes the need to "protect, restore, and improve the public safety." Section 19-2-102(1), C.R.S. 2005. The Trujillo division's "concrete period" analysis discourages recidivism and thus furthers public safety.

In contrast, adopting defendant's interpretation of § 19-2-517(1)(a)(IV) would not further public safety. Affording the People discretion to direct file on a crime committed before the juvenile turns fourteen increases the consequences of that crime to the juvenile who has previously been subject to district court...