People v. Smith
| Decision Date | 03 February 2014 |
| Docket Number | Supreme Court Case No. 10SC747 |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Petitioner v. Spencer Klinton SMITH, Respondent. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, Court of Appeals Case No. 08CA2071
Attorneys for Petitioner: John W. Suthers, Attorney General, Corelle M. Spettigue, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado.
Attorneys for Respondent: Douglas K. Wilson, Colorado State Public Defender, Dayna Vise, Deputy Public Defender, Sean Christopher Thomson, Deputy Public Defender, Denver, Colorado.
En Banc
¶ 1 In this opinion, we review People v. Smith, 312 P.3d 1173 (Colo.App.2010), a court of appeals decision analyzing the scope of a trial court's discretion when awarding credit for presentence confinement against a jail sentence imposed as a condition of probation. In Smith, the court of appeals held that the trial court abused its discretion when it awarded Smith, a felony offender, only a portion of his presentence confinement credit (“PSCC”) 1 against a jail term imposed as a condition of probation. 312 P.3d at 1180–81. The court of appeals concluded that while the trial court was not required to award PSCC against a jail term imposed as a condition of probation, if the trial court chose to award PSCC, it had to award PSCC equal to the full amount of time served. Id. at 1181.
¶ 2 We disagree. We hold that the statutory provision governing PSCC for a felony offense, section 18–1.3–405, C.R.S. (2013), does not apply to probation, and therefore does not apply to the jail component of a probation sentence. Because a trial court is not constrained by section 18–1.3–405 when sentencing an offender to probation with a jail component, whether to credit an offender for presentence confinement—in full, in part, or not at all—is within the trial court's discretion. Accordingly, we reverse and we remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
¶ 3 Spencer Smith broke into the victim's apartment carrying a concealed shotgun. He claimed that he went to the apartment to collect on a debt. A jury found Smith guilty of first-degree criminal trespass. He was sentenced to three years of intensive supervised probation. As a condition of his probation, the trial court ordered Smith to serve 30 days in the county jail to impress upon Smith the severity of his crime. The trial court noted that the defendant had already served county jail time at the time of sentencing but determined that additional jail time was warranted due to the use of a weapon:
The Court does feel there's a need for a punitive sanction, and the Court is going to sentence the defendant to 30 days at the Larimer County Detention Center.
I do note the defendant previously served 89 days, but the Court feels it's appropriate that the defendant serve 30 days straight time at the Larimer County Detention Center. The Court ... simply wants to make sure the defendant understands that the use of weapons in situations like this just cannot be tolerated.
Defense counsel objected, stating: “[The] maximum that the Court can impose as a condition of probation is 90 days.” The trial court overruled the objection, stating:
¶ 4 Smith appealed the denial of 29 days of PSCC. He argued that the felony PSCC statute, section 18–1.3–405, mandates that a court apply the full 89 days of credit against a jail term imposed as a condition of probation. In the alternative, he argued that the trial court's interpretation of the PSCC statute violated his equal protection rights.
¶ 5 The court of appeals reversed the trial court, concluding that while the trial court had discretion not to award any PSCC to a jail sentence imposed as a condition of felony probation, if the trial court decided to award PSCC, it did not have discretion to award less than the full amount of PSCC. Smith, 312 P.3d at 1180–81. In short, the court of appeals held that a trial court sentencing a felony offender to probation only has the discretion either to apply full PSCC or to apply no PSCC to a jail sentence imposed as a condition of probation. Id.
¶ 6 We granted certiorari to address the question of whether an offender is entitled to have the jail component of his probation sentence reduced by the period of presentence confinement.2
¶ 7 To resolve this issue we first examine our precedent regarding the scope of the trial court's authority when sentencing a convictedoffender to probation under the probation statute, section 18–1.3–202, C.R.S. (2013). Next, we evaluate the statutory framework underlying an award of PSCC for a felony offense, section 18–1.3–405, to determine whether the statute requires a trial court, when sentencing an offender to probation that includes a jail component, to credit an offender for presentence confinement in a certain amount.
¶ 8 Probation is an alternative to a prison sentence. § 18–1.3–104, C.R.S. (2013); Danielson v. Dennis, 139 P.3d 688, 693 (Colo.2006). The legislature created these sentencing alternatives because incarceration and probation serve different purposes. People v. Martinez, 844 P.2d 1203, 1206 (Colo.App.1992). A prison sentence is primarily punitive. Id. By contrast, probation is intended to be rehabilitative. Logan v. People for Use of Alamosa Cnty., 138 Colo. 304, 307, 332 P.2d 897, 899 (1958). Because probation is an opportunity for an offender to avoid serving a harsher sentence, an offender must apply for it, and receipt of probation is characterized as a privilege, not a right. Holdren v. People, 168 Colo. 474, 478, 452 P.2d 28, 30 (1969). An offender also must choose to accept the court's terms; the court may not impose a sentence of probation without the offender's consent. People v. Rollins, 771 P.2d 32, 33–34 (Colo.App.1989). If the offender rejects probation, the court may sentence the offender to imprisonment under section 18–1.3–104.
¶ 9 The court's general authority to grant an offender probation comes from section 18–1.3–202. As such, the court may impose any conditions on the offender's probation that are authorized by the statute. People v. Brockelman, 933 P.2d 1315, 1318 (Colo.1997). Under the statute, a court has broad discretion to impose whatever conditions it considers appropriate to ensure that the offender leads a law-abiding life: “[T]he court may grant the defendant probation for such period and upon such terms and conditions as it deems best.” § 18–1.3–202; Brockelman, 933 P.2d at 1318–19. A condition will only be considered outside of the scope of the court's authority if it is not reasonably related to encouraging the offender to lead a law-abiding life. Brockelman, 933 P.2d at 1319.
¶ 10 A court's broad discretion to impose conditions on the probation sentence that it deems suitable for encouraging rehabilitation includes the option to impose a jail sentence. For an offender convicted of a felony, the court may impose up to 90 days of jail time as a term of probation:
In addition to imposing other conditions, the court has the power to commit the defendant to any jail operated by the county or city and county in which the offense was committed during such time or for such intervals within the period of probation as the court determines. The aggregate length of any such commitment whether continuous or at designated intervals shall not exceed ninety days for a felony....
§ 18–1.3–202. A short jail sentence is a justifiable condition of probation because it encourages the offender to be law-abiding by “impress[ing] upon the offender that the conduct underlying the offense of conviction is unlawful and could have resulted in a longer term of total confinement.” Sentencing to Total Confinement, ABA Standards of Criminal Justice § 18–6.4(a)(iv) (3d ed. 1994). In this sense, jail as a condition of probation is used as a deterrent.
¶ 11 In this case, the trial court did not exceed its authority under the probation statute by imposing a jail term of 90 days. The court was authorized to impose up to 90 days because the purpose of the jail term was to deter future illegal activity. SeeFaulkner v. Dist. Court, 826 P.2d 1277, 1280 (Colo.1992) (). The trial court explained that, in its discretion, it thought that a jail term was a necessary condition of probation because it would impress upon Smith that it was not appropriate to bring a weapon to collect on a debt. Hence, the court was authorized to impose the 90–day jail sentence.
¶ 12 Having concluded that the trial court acted within its authority under the probation statute, we next consider if the court is nevertheless constrained by section 18–1.3–405 in applying credit for presentence confinement.
¶ 13 Whether section 18–1.3–405 requires that PSCC be applied to a jail term imposed as a condition of probation is a question of statutory interpretation. In interpreting a statute, we first consider its plain language and construe words and phrases according to the rules of grammar and common usage. § 2–4–101, C.R.S. (2013); Jefferson Cnty. Bd. of Equalization v. Gerganoff, 241 P.3d 932, 935 (Colo.2010). When the language of a statute is clear, we apply the statute as written. Specialty Rests. Corp. v. Nelson, 231 P.3d 393, 397 (Colo.2010). We do not add words to a statute. Boulder Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs v. HealthSouth Corp., 246 P.3d 948, 951 (Colo.2011).
¶ 14 The statute in question, section 18–1.3–405, directs the trial court to record the amount of a felony offender's presentence confinement on the mittimus and directs the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Landis
...2020. We disagree.A. Applicable Law and Standard of Review ¶ 8 Probation is "a privilege, not a right." People v. Smith , 2014 CO 10, ¶ 8, 318 P.3d 472. It is an alternative to prison and is intended to be rehabilitative. See § 18-1.3-104(1)(a), (b), C.R.S. 2020; Smith , ¶ 8. If an offender......
-
People v. Whitlock
...People v. Noel, 134 P.3d 484, 486 (Colo. App. 2005) ("Probation is a privilege, not a right."); see also People v. Smith, 2014 CO 10, ¶ 8, 318 P.3d 472 ("Because probation is an opportunity for an offender to avoid serving a harsher sentence, an offender must apply for it, and receipt of pr......
-
People ex rel. J.S.R.
...offenders. See § 19–2–908(1)(a). ¶ 36 Generally, probation is an alternative sentence to commitment. People v. Smith, 2014 CO 10, ¶ 8, 318 P.3d 472 (“The legislature created these sentencing alternatives because incarceration and probation serve different purposes. A prison sentence is prim......
-
People v. Torrez, Supreme Court Case No. 12SC448.
...of statutory construction. When a statute's language is clear, this court must apply it as written. People v. Smith, 2014 CO 10, ¶ 13, 318 P.3d 472, 476 (interpreting section 18-1.3-405 ).¶83 We cannot add words to the statute, id., yet the majority does just that. Read naturally, the word ......