People v. White, 90CA1162

Decision Date15 August 1991
Docket NumberNo. 90CA1162,90CA1162
Citation819 P.2d 1096
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Franklin R. WHITE, Defendant-Appellee. . III
CourtColorado Court of Appeals

Frank J. Daniels, Chief Deputy Dist. Atty., and Stephen K. Erkenbrack, Dist. Atty., Grand Junction, for plaintiff-appellant.

Williams Larson Foster & Griff, Stephen L. Laiche, Grand Junction, for defendant-appellee.

Opinion by Judge PLANK.

The sole issue involved in this appeal is whether § 16-8-112, C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 8A) precludes the release on bail of a defendant who is charged with a violent crime and found incompetent to proceed. We hold that it does not.

As a result of an automobile accident involving him and one other, defendant, Franklin R. White, was charged with vehicular assault, assault in the second degree, two counts of hit and run, and one count of driving under the influence. Following the accident, defendant began ongoing treatment at the Veteran's Administration Hospital for alcohol abuse and other mental health conditions.

Prior to defendant's preliminary hearing, the county court made a final determination that defendant was incompetent to proceed as defined by § 16-8-102(3), C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 8A). However, it denied the People's motion under § 16-8-112(2), C.R.S. (1986 Repl. Vol. 8A) to commit defendant to the department of institutions. The People appealed the denial to the district court.

The district court determined that, because defendant had been charged with violent offenses, commitment was required under § 16-8-112(2) and, thus, ordered that it be done. The next day the defendant moved the court pursuant to § 16-8-112(3), C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 8A) to permit his release on bail. The court granted defendant's motion and released him on a $3,300 co-signed personal recognizance bond.

The People contend that § 16-8-112(3) cannot apply to a person determined to be incompetent who is charged with an offense involving violent behavior. We disagree.

Section 16-8-112 outlines procedures for the trial court to follow after a competency hearing. Section 16-8-112(2) addresses treatment of those determined incompetent and § 16-8-112(3) addresses bail.

Section 16-8-112(2) provides, in part:

"If the final determination is that the defendant is incompetent to proceed, the court shall commit the defendant to the custody of the department of institutions.... However, in the case of a defendant who is charged with an offense which does not involve violent behavior and who is subject to treatment on an outpatient basis as determined by the examination conducted pursuant to section 16-8-111(2) or on the basis of adequate psychiatric information already available, the court may order the defendant to undergo treatment at or under the supervision of a facility.... Such commitment or treatment shall continue until the defendant is found competent to proceed...."

Section 16-8-112(3) provides:

"A determination under subsection (2) of this section that a defendant is incompetent to proceed shall not preclude the court from considering the release of defendant on bail upon compliance with the standards and procedures for such release prescribed by statute and by the Colorado rules of criminal procedure. At any hearing to determine eligibility for release on bail, the courts may consider any effect the defendant's incompetency may have on his ability to insure his presence for trial. In the case of an incompetent defendant who is not subject to treatment on an outpatient basis ... there shall be a presumption that the incompetency of the defendant will inhibit the ability of the defendant to insure his presence for trial." (emphasis added)

The trial court found that the insertion of the last sentence in § 16-8-112(3) indicates a legislative intent to allow the release on bail of a defendant determined to be incompetent, even if that person is charged with a violent crime. We agree.

The first goal of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the General Assembly. To determine intent, we must look first to the statutory language, giving the terms their commonly accepted and understood meaning. People v. Terry, 791 P.2d 374 (Colo.1990); People v. Guenther, 740 P.2d 971 (Colo.1987). We must also attempt to give effect to each part of the statute. Constructions which render a part of the statute meaningless should be avoided. Section 2-4-201(1)(b)...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Allen v. Martin, 06CA1768.
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • June 12, 2008
    ...for violation of section 11-51-501, C.R.S. 2007. Nor is such a defense mentioned in section 11-51-501 itself. Cf. People v. White, 819 P.2d 1096, 1098 (Colo.App.1991) (mention of one exception excludes other Therefore, Martin's failure to advise WIIN to make all participating buyers resciss......
  • People v. Zapotocky
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • February 14, 1994
    ...and the Rules of Criminal Procedure, section 16-8-112(3), even if the defendant is charged with a violent crime. People v. White, 819 P.2d 1096, 1098 (Colo.App.1991). The question raised in this case concerns what occurs when it becomes apparent the defendant is unlikely in the foreseeable ......
  • Prospect 34, LLC v. Gunnison Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • November 5, 2015
    ...would be meaningless. Yet, "[c]onstructions which render a part of the statute meaningless should be avoided." People v. White, 819 P.2d 1096, 1097 (Colo.App.1991).3. Section 29–1–302's procedure for increasing mill levies¶ 39 The General Assembly delineated a procedure to increase mill lev......
  • Cappelli v. Demlow
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • June 27, 1996
    ...C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 8A) provides for release of the defendant on bail, provided certain requirements are met. See People v. White, 819 P.2d 1096 (Colo.App.1991) (release on bail in competency proceeding authorized even if defendant accused of violent crime). We further note that the reco......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • When Worlds Collide: Mentally Ill Criminal Defendants-part I
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado Lawyer No. 29-6, June 2000
    • Invalid date
    ...must be a "facility" as defined under Colorado's mental health laws at CRS § 27-10-102(4.5). 58. CRS § 16-8-112(3). 59. People v. White, 819 P.2d 1096 (Colo.App. 60. CRS § 16-8-112(4). 61. People v. Gilliland, 769 P.2d 477 (Colo. 1989); Parks v. Denver District Court, 503 P.2d 1029 (Colo. 1......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT