People v. Falls, 00CA2169.

• Court: Court of Appeals of Colorado
• Citation: 58 P.3d 1140
• Docket Number: No. 00CA2169.,00CA2169.
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jason C. FALLS, Defendant-Appellant.
• Decision Date: 18 July 2002

58 P.3d 1140

The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Jason C. FALLS, Defendant-Appellant

No. 00CA2169.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. A.

July 18, 2002.

Certiorari Denied December 16, 2002.¹

Ken Salazar, Attorney General, John J. Fuerst, III, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

David S. Kaplan, Colorado State Public Defender, Anne Stockham, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant.

58 P.3d 1141

Opinion by Justice KIRSHBAUM.²

Defendant, Jason C. Falls, appeals from the trial court's order denying his motion for postconviction relief. We reverse and remand for correction of the mittimus.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pled guilty in April 1997 to attempted felony menacing and three habitual criminal counts. The court imposed a sentence of six years to the Department of Corrections plus a period of mandatory parole.

In his Crim. P. 35(c) motion, defendant asserted that the imposition of mandatory parole violated his right to equal protection. However, on appeal, defendant argues only that his sentence is invalid on statutory grounds. Specifically, he contends that because he is a habitual criminal, he is subject to the discretionary parole period established by §§ 17-2-201(5)(a) and 17-2-213, C.R.S. 2001, rather than the mandatory parole period provided in §§ 17-22.5-403(7) and 18-1-105(1)(a)(V), C.R.S.2001. Although this specific argument was not presented to the trial court, an appellate court may elect to address questions concerning the legality of a sentence or implicating fundamental rights. Crim. P. 35(a); Mulkey v. Sullivan, 753 P.2d 1226 (Colo.1988). We choose to do so here.

When construing statutes, a court must ascertain and give effect to the intent of the General Assembly. Martin v. People, 27 P.3d 846 (Colo.2001). Clear and unambiguous statutory language must be construed as written. People v. Marquez, 983 P.2d 159 (Colo.App.1999). Statutory schemes must be considered as a whole, and harmonious effect must be given to all parts thereof. Martin v. People, supra. Any interpretation that renders a clause meaningless should be avoided. People v. Terry, 791 P.2d 374 (Colo.1990).

If statutes conflict irreconcilably, specific statutory provisions prevail over general provisions, unless the general provisions were adopted later in time and the General Assembly clearly intended the general provisions to prevail. Section 2-4-205, C.R.S. 2001; Martin v. People, supra.

Section 17-2-213 authorizes the State Board of Parole to establish the duration of parole periods for persons sentenced as habitual criminals. Section 17-2-201(5)(a) contains the following...