People v. Brack, 90CA1682
| Decision Date | 21 November 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 90CA1682,90CA1682 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Elliot BRACK, Defendant-Appellant. . II |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Gale A. Norton, Atty. Gen., Raymond T. Slaughter, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Timothy M. Tymkovich, Sol. Gen., Laurie A. Booras, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.
Charles Elliot Brack, pro se.
Opinion by Judge JONES.
Defendant, Charles Elliot Brack, appeals from the trial court's order denying his request that he be transferred to another state to serve his 20-year sentence. We affirm.
Defendant was initially charged with second degree burglary, possession of burglary tools, and four habitual criminal counts. Pursuant to a plea agreement, he entered a guilty plea to the second degree burglary charge, and the remaining charges were dismissed. The court then sentenced the defendant to a 20-year term of incarceration and scheduled a subsequent hearing to determine the place of his confinement. This delay in issuing a sentencing order was the result of defendant's expressed concerns that his life would be in danger if he were confined in a Colorado facility because he had testified against a prominent Colorado organized crime figure.
At the hearing to determine defendant's place of confinement, the court heard testimony about the need for defendant to be placed in a protective custody environment. Defense counsel requested that the court make a recommendation that defendant be confined in another state. The court agreed to defense counsel's request and, in the mittimus, recommended that defendant be housed in the State of Washington.
Eight months later defendant was returned to Colorado because it was believed he was needed as a witness in another case. Defendant was not subsequently returned to Washington, but was, instead, notified that he would serve the remainder of his sentence in a Colorado facility, necessitated by the State of Washington's termination of a prisoner housing contract between it and Colorado which had previously allowed defendant to be transferred.
Defendant requested that the court enforce the terms of the mittimus as to his place of incarceration. Following a hearing, the request was denied, and defendant was ordered to continue serving his sentence in Canon City.
Defendant contends that the court erred in determining it had no jurisdiction to enter an order directing his confinement in an out-of-state prison facility. We find no error.
Section 16-11-301(1), C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 8A) provides:
As a general rule, imprisonment for the conviction of a felony by an adult offender shall be served by confinement in an appropriate facility as determined by the executive director of the department of corrections. In such cases, the court will sentence the offender to the custody of the executive director of the department of corrections.
Similarly, § 17-40-103, C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 8A) directs the executive director to determine the appropriate facility for placement of every inmate after an initial evaluation at the diagnostic center has been performed.
The plain language of these statutes evidences the General Assembly's intent to give the executive director of the Department of Corrections ultimate responsibility for the placement of inmates in particular facilities. There are no provisions in the statutes which give the courts authority to order a defendant's placement in a particular facility, whether it be in Colorado or in another state.
A court is not free to disregard statutory mandates even when they appear to dictate a sentence which the court considers inappropriate to a particular case. People ex rel. Gallagher v. District Court, 632 P.2d 1009 (Colo.1981). Hence, as the court recognized here, it could do no more than recommend out-of-state placement for the defendant because it was without jurisdiction to order the defendant's transfer.
Defendant maintains, however, that the Western Interstate Corrections Compact, § 24-60-801, et seq., C.R.S. (1988 Repl.Vol. 10B), gives courts the authority to direct inmate placement. We disagree.
The agreement does not specifically give the courts authority to order out-of-state placement, but rather directs that an appropriate state official determine which inmates would benefit from transfer to another state. In Colorado, our statutes provide that the executive director of the Department of Corrections is the appropriate official to enter into agreements with other states for the housing of offenders sentenced in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Tarver, 2005 NMCA 030 (NM 1/19/2005)
...when interpreting its similar version of the Compact under circumstances similar to those in the case at bar. People v. Brack, 821 P.2d 928, 930 (Colo. Ct. App. {12} We recognize that the Compact does state that judicial authorities may implement its provisions. But in light of the rest of ......
-
State v. Tarver
...when interpreting its similar version of the Compact under circumstances similar to those in the case at bar. People v. Brack, 821 P.2d 928, 930 (Colo. Ct. App. 1991). {12} We recognize that the Compact does state that judicial authorities may implement its provisions. But in light of the r......
-
White v. Adamek
...of the executive director of the DOC, who has ultimate responsibility for placing offenders in appropriate facilities. People v. Brack, 821 P.2d 928 (Colo.App.1991) (sentencing courts cannot order placement of felony The executive director must determine which place of confinement or rehabi......
-
People v. Harris, 95CA1262
...C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 8A); § 17-22.5-104(2)(d), C.R.S. (1996 Cum.Supp.); § 18-1-105, C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 8B); People v. Brack, 821 P.2d 928 (Colo.App.1991). However, in support of their contention that the sentencing court is vested with inherent authority to issue an order such as this......