People v. Luther

• Citation: 58 P.3d 1013
• Decision Date: 25 November 2002
• Docket Number: No. 01SC877.,01SC877.
• Parties: THE PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Petitioner, v. Mark Lowe LUTHER, Respondent.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

58 P.3d 1013

THE PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Petitioner, v. Mark Lowe LUTHER, Respondent.

No. 01SC877.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

November 25, 2002.

Rehearing Denied December 16, 2002.¹

Ken Salazar, Attorney General, John J. Krause, Assistant Solicitor General, Appellate Division, Criminal Justice Section, Denver, Colorado, Attorneys for Petitioner.

David S. Kaplan, Colorado State Public Defender, Nancy J. Lichtenstein, Deputy

State Public Defender Denver, Colorado, Attorneys for Respondent.

Justice KOURLIS delivered the Opinion of the Court.

I. Introduction

In this case, defendant, Mark Lowe Luther, served a sentence of incarceration for reckless manslaughter, was released on parole, and then violated his parole by commission of the crime of escape. The trial court imposed a consecutive sentence on the escape charge, to begin after completion of the revoked parole incarceration period. Luther appealed, and the court of appeals reversed the trial court in People v. Luther, 43 P.3d 660 (Colo.App.2001), holding that the effect of the sentence would be the imposition of consecutive mandatory parole periods, in violation of section 18-1-105(1)(a)(V)(E), 6 C.R.S. (2002).² That statute provides that when an offender receives two or more consecutive felony sentences, the governing mandatory parole period shall be the one for the higher class felony.

We granted certiorari³ and now reverse the judgment of the court of appeals. Consistent with the overall statutory structure regarding sentencing and parole, we conclude that Luther was not facing two sentences with associated mandatory parole periods, and therefore section 18-1-105(1)(a)(V)(E) is inapplicable.

II. Facts and Procedural History

Mark Lowe Luther pleaded guilty to reckless manslaughter, a class four felony.⁴ In 1995, the trial court sentenced Luther to an eighteen-month term of imprisonment plus a three-year period of mandatory parole. After approximately one year of incarceration, the parole board paroled Luther, with the condition that he complete 180 days of intensive supervised parole ("ISP"). During ISP, Luther fled to Texas, where authorities arrested him and extradited him back to Colorado. Upon his return to Colorado, Luther was charged with escape pursuant to sections 17-27.5-104 and 18-8-208(1) and (2), 6 C.R.S. (2002), and theft of an electronic monitoring device pursuant to section 18-4-401(2)(c), 6 C.R.S. (2002). The parole board revoked Luther's parole and he remained in custody awaiting disposition of the new charges.

As part of a plea agreement, Luther agreed to plead guilty to a charge of attempted escape from ISP, a class four felony, pursuant to section 18-8-208.1(1), 6 C.R.S. (2002), in exchange for the dismissal of the remaining charges. The trial court sentenced Luther to a three-year stipulated sentence in the Department of Corrections ("DOC"), plus a three-year period of mandatory parole as required by section 18-1-105(1)(a)(V)(A). The trial court ordered that this sentence was to be served consecutively to the underlying manslaughter sentence, as required by section 18-8-208.1(1).

Luther filed a Crim.P. 35(a) motion arguing that the sentence imposed was illegal as it would require him to serve consecutive mandatory parole periods in violation of section 18-1-105(1)(a)(V)(E). The trial court denied the motion, reasoning that when Luther was reincarcerated on the parole revocation, he was no longer serving his original sentence, but was rather serving a revocation of parole period, such that the consecutive sentences imposed did not violate section 18-1-105(1)(a)(V)(E).

Luther appealed this ruling to the court of appeals, which reversed the trial court order. The court of appeals held that while the escape statute authorized a consecutive sentence, the trial court could not require Luther to serve two mandatory parole periods. People v. Luther, 43 P.3d 660, 661 (Colo.App. 2001). Because Luther had not completed serving his period of mandatory parole for the manslaughter sentence, the court concluded that the effect of the trial court's ruling would be to require consecutive mandatory parole periods, thus violating section 18-1-105(1)(a)(V)(E). Id. at 662.

The People sought certiorari, arguing that the court of appeals erred in concluding that section 18-1-105(1)(a)(V)(E) applied to Luther. We agree, and now reverse.

III. Statutory Interpretation

The basic rules of statutory interpretation are so oft-stated as to be rote. First, we begin with the proposition that we have a fundamental responsibility to interpret statutes in a way that gives effect to the General Assembly's purpose or intent in enacting a statute. Martin v. People, 27 P.3d 846, 851 (Colo.2001). To accomplish this objective, the court must begin with the plain language of the statute. Id. If the statute is unambiguous and does not conflict with other statutory provisions, we need look no further. Id. If, however, the language of the statute is ambiguous, or in conflict with other provisions, we then look to legislative history, prior law, the consequences of a given construction, and the goal of the statutory scheme, to ascertain the correct meaning of a statute. Id.

We presume that the General Assembly intended the entire statute to be effective and intended a just and reasonable result. § 2-4-201(1)(b) and (c), 1 C.R.S. (2002). "[W]e must read and consider the statutory scheme as a whole to give consistent, harmonious and sensible effect to all its parts." Charnes v. Boom, 766 P.2d 665, 667 (Colo.1988). If an interpretation would yield an absurd result, it is disfavored. Reg'l Transp. Dist. v. Lopez, 916 P.2d 1187, 1192 (Colo.1996).

IV. Analysis

This case requires us to determine the effect of section 18-1-105(1)(a)(V)(E), which directs that when a court imposes consecutive sentences for two or more felonies, the mandatory parole period shall be the period for the highest class felony of which the defendant is convicted. Specifically, the statute states that:

If an offender is sentenced consecutively for the commission of two or more felony offenses pursuant to sub-subparagraph (A) of this subparagraph (V), the mandatory period of parole for such offender shall be the mandatory period of parole established for the highest class felony of which such offender has been convicted.

§ 18-1-105(1)(a)(V)(E).

This statute is part of the mandatory parole construct, implemented by the General Assembly in 1993. The penalties for felony offenders under that scheme include both an incarceration component and a mandatory parole component. See Ch. 322, sec. 7, § 18-1-105(1)(a)(V)(A)-(E), 1993 Colo. Sess. Laws 1981, 1981-83. The statutes provide presumptive maximum and minimum sentences for imprisonment and require that a mandatory period of parole must attach to each imprisonment sentence, the length of which is dependent on the class of the felony. § 18-1-105(1)(a)(V)(A). The statute does not permit the parties or the trial courts to waive or suspend any portion of the mandatory period of parole, but vests in the state board of parole the exclusive authority to release an offender from his or her designated parole period after a determination that the offender has been sufficiently rehabilitated and can no longer benefit from the parole supervision. § 18-1-105(1)(a)(V)(B).

In this case, Luther argues that his sentence violated section 18-1-105(1)(a)(V)(E) by creating the equivalent of two periods of mandatory parole. Luther had completed his first prison term and had commenced his mandatory period of parole. He was reincarcerated due to the parole violation. The trial court sentenced him to a consecutive sentence of three years in DOC with three years of mandatory parole. The net effect of that order is that Luther must serve out the remainder of the term of reincarceration resulting from his parole violation before beginning the escape sentence and then serving the parole attaching to that escape sentence. Luther contends that the period of reincarceration attributable to a parole violation is itself mandatory parole, and thus must merge into the mandatory parole period associated with the attempted escape charge. The effect of his argument is that he would suffer no additional penalty associated with the parole revocation because that penalty would merge into the mandatory parole attached to the attempted escape charge.

We disagree with Luther's analysis for two reasons. First, we conclude that the trial court that imposed the attempted escape sentence had no authority over the parole revocation reincarceration. Second, we conclude that the parole revocation reincarceration was itself neither a period of parole nor a sentence that carried parole pursuant to section 18-1-105(1)(a)(V)(A).

As directed by statutory construction principles, we look initially to the language of the statute to determine the overall meaning and intent. Luther had discharged his sentence to imprisonment on the manslaughter charge, and that sentence was no longer operable in any sense. § 18-1-105(1)(a)(V)(D) ("If the offender has been granted release to parole supervision by the state board of parole, the offender shall be deemed to have discharged the offender's sentence to imprisonment.") He was released on mandatory parole and reincarcerated for a parole violation.

In addressing the mandatory period of parole, the General Assembly clearly stated that the parole board maintains exclusive authority to grant parole. Once an offender is on parole, the parole board alone has the power to continue, modify, or revoke parole if the offender violates the terms and conditions of that parole. § 17-22.5-403(1) and (8)(a), 6 C.R.S. (2002). Thus, once the parole board released Luther to his mandatory parole period, the trial court lacked authority to impact the terms of that parole, or the penalties for violation of that parole. See Martin v. People, 27 P.3d 846, 858 (Colo.20...