People v. Garcia, 07CA1718.
Decision Date | 27 December 2007 |
Docket Number | No. 07CA1718.,07CA1718. |
Citation | 176 P.3d 872 |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Anthony P. GARCIA, Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
William Thiebaut, Jr., District Attorney, Steven B. Fieldman, Deputy District Attorney, Pueblo, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
No Appearance for Defendant-Appellee.
Opinion by Judge ROMÁN.
The People appeal the trial court's order dismissing count one of the information filed against defendant, Anthony P. Garcia. We reverse and remand with directions to reinstate count one.
Defendant was charged in count two with third degree assault, a class one misdemeanor. Count one of the information was a charge of habitual domestic violence offender which, if proven, would enhance the level of the misdemeanor offense to a class five felony. 18-6-801(7), C.R.S.2007. The information designated count one as a class five felony instead of a sentence enhancement charge.
Defendant requested a preliminary hearing pursuant to section 16-5-301(1), C.R.S. 2007. The prosecution moved to vacate the preliminary hearing, stating,
At the preliminary hearing, the prosecutor argued that, because the habitual offender count was a sentence enhancer and not a substantive charge, defendant was not entitled to a preliminary hearing. The trial court concluded that the pertinent language of section 16-5-301(1) allowed defendant to receive a preliminary hearing because the habitual offender charge carried a mandatory sentence. Because the prosecution did not present evidence on count one, the court dismissed it. The court did not dismiss count two, the assault charge.
The People now appeal the trial court's ruling. See C.A.R. 4(b)(3) ( ). The People contend defendant is not entitled to a preliminary hearing because count two, the substantive offense with which he was charged, is a misdemeanor, and count one is a sentence enhancer, not a substantive offense. We agree.
Statutes are to be interpreted "according to their plain and ordinary meaning, and a reviewing court must strive to construe a statutory scheme in a manner that gives harmonious and sensible effect to all its' parts." People v. Taylor, 104 P.3d 269, 271 (Colo.App.2004).
Section 16-5-301(1)(a), C.R.S.2007, which provides for a preliminary hearing in certain cases, states in pertinent part:
[O]nly those persons accused of a class 4, 5, or 6 felony by direct information or felony complaint which felony requires mandatory sentencing . . . shall have the right to demand and receive a preliminary hearing within a reasonable time to determine whether probable cause exists to believe that the offense charged in the information or felony complaint was committed by the defendant.
(Emphasis added.) See also § 16-5-301(1)(b)(I), C.R.S.2007 ().
Here, the substantive charge of the information was count two, which charged defendant with misdemeanor third degree assault under section 18-3-204, C.R.S.2007. The trial court concluded that defendant was entitled to a preliminary hearing because count one of the information, if proven, would enhance the misdemeanor to a class five felony and would require mandatory sentencing.
However, section 18-6-801(7) permits the enhancement of certain sentences involving domestic violence under the following limited circumstances:
In the event a person is convicted . . . of any offense which would otherwise be a misdemeanor, the underlying factual basis of which has been found by the court on the record to include an act of domestic violence as defined in section 18-6-800.3(1), [C.R.S.2007,] and that person has been three times previously convicted, upon charges separately brought and tried and arising out of separate and distinct criminal episodes, of a felony or misdemeanor or municipal ordinance violation, the underlying factual basis of which was found by the court on the record to include an act of domestic violence, the prosecuting attorney may petition the court to adjudge the person an habitual domestic violence offender, and such person shall be convicted of a class 5 felony. If the person is adjudged an habitual domestic violence offender, the court shall sentence the person pursuant to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Schreiber
...hearing even though the misdemeanor conviction could be converted to a felony because of prior convictions. People v. Garcia, 176 P.3d 872, 873 (Colo.App.2007). I respectfully disagree with the reasoning in that opinion for the reasons outlined in this dissent, and I would choose not to fol......
-
Rodriguez v. Chavez
...Colorado law, persons charged with misdemeanors are not entitled to a preliminary - or probable cause - hearing. People v. Garcia, 176 P.3d 872, 874 (Colo. App. 2007) (citing Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-5-301(1)(a)). Courts have suggested that, in lieu of a preliminary hearing, legal process is i......
-
People v. Vigil
...719 (Colo. 2005).D. Statutory Interpretation Analysis ¶ 19 A division of this court has addressed the HDVO statute in People v. Garcia, 176 P.3d 872 (Colo. App. 2007), and concluded that it is a sentence enhancement statute, not a substantive offense. Garcia, 176 P.3d at 873. The division s......
-
Sr Condominiums, LLC v. K.C. Const., Inc.
... ... People in Interest of J.A.U. v. R.L.C., 47 P.3d 327, 330 (Colo.2002) ... C.R.C.P. 60(b) ... ...
-
ARTICLE 6
...with a class 4, 5, or 6 felony. Here, the substantive offense with which defendant was charged was a misdemeanor. People v. Garcia, 176 P.3d 872 (Colo. App. 2007), overruled in People v. Vanness, 2020 CO 18, 458 P.3d 901. Under subsection (7), defendant could only stand convicted of a class......
-
ARTICLE 6 OFFENSES INVOLVING THE FAMILY RELATIONS
...with a class 4, 5, or 6 felony. Here, the substantive offense with which defendant was charged was a misdemeanor. People v. Garcia, 176 P.3d 872 (Colo. App. 2007). Under subsection (7), defendant could only stand convicted of a class 5 felony if first convicted of the misdemeanor and subseq......