White v. Department of Institutions, State of Colo.
Citation | 883 P.2d 575 |
Decision Date | 11 August 1994 |
Docket Number | No. 93CA2021,93CA2021 |
Parties | T.J. WHITE, Petitioner-Appellee, v. DEPARTMENT OF INSTITUTIONS, STATE OF COLORADO, Respondent-Appellant. . II |
Court | Court of Appeals of Colorado |
Gerash, Robinson & Miranda, P.C., Scott H. Robinson, Denver, for petitioner-appellee.
Gale A. Norton, Atty. Gen., Stephen K. ErkenBrack, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Timothy M. Tymkovich, Sol. Gen., Thomas S. Parchman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for respondent-appellant.
Opinion by Judge MARQUEZ.
Respondent, the Department of Institutions (DOI), appeals the preliminary injunction issued by the trial court prohibiting DOI from transferring petitioner, T.J. White, from DOI to the Department of Corrections (DOC). We vacate the injunction.
As part of a plea bargain pertaining to his part in the murder of a state patrolman, petitioner, 15 years old at the time of the offense, pled guilty to charges of aggravated motor vehicle theft and accessory to crime in exchange for dismissal of a murder charge. The disposition included an express agreement by the district attorney that the prosecution would not object to petitioner's being incarcerated in a DOI facility until he reached the age of eighteen, with reconsideration of his sentence to occur at or before his eighteenth birthday. Following his guilty plea, petitioner was housed at the Mount View Detention Center, a facility operated by DOI.
A sentencing hearing was held in June 1993 in Clear Creek County District Court (sentencing court). While the sentencing court imposed two consecutive sixteen-year sentences to DOC, it ordered that petitioner be placed in a DOI facility. The mittimus likewise ordered petitioner's placement at a DOI facility until he became eighteen.
After imposition of this sentence, petitioner was returned to Mount View where he continued to be incarcerated. On September 13, 1993, DOI sent a letter to the sentencing court urging it to "reconsider" the sentence imposed. A second letter sent two days later stated: "In order to assist the court in addressing the legal issues raised in our September 13, 1993 letter, DOI will not transfer [petitioner] as scheduled on September 16, 1993." (original emphasis)
Subsequently, however, petitioner became concerned that he would be moved to a DOC facility on October 6, 1993. As a result, on October 5, 1993, petitioner filed a "Motion for Temporary Restraining Order" in Denver District Court. The court granted the request and limited the temporary restraining order to ten days.
Petitioner thereafter filed a "Motion to Extend Temporary Restraining Order and to Set Hearing on a Preliminary Injunction." This motion was also filed in Denver District Court. Since there were no relevant undisputed facts, the Denver court issued a preliminary injunction order at the conclusion of this second hearing on October 15, 1993. The court entered a written order on October 25, 1993.
On appeal, DOI argues that the Denver court lacked jurisdiction to enter an injunction. We agree.
A court has jurisdiction from the filing of the complaint or the service of summons and complaint. C.R.C.P. 3(b).
DOI filed a notice of appeal on November 29, 1993. On December 22, 1993, DOI filed a motion to dismiss in the Denver court. DOI argued, inter alia, that because petitioner had failed to file a complaint, the Denver court lacked jurisdiction. On February 3, 1994, the Denver court entered an order stating: The record does...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Marriage of Finer, In re
...--- P.2d ---- (Colo.App.1995); City of Aurora v. Board of County Commissioners, --- P.2d ---- (Colo.App.1994); White v. Department of Institutions, 883 P.2d 575 (Colo.App.1994); Network Telecommunications, Inc. v. Boor-Crepeau, 790 P.2d 901 (Colo.App.1990); Parrish v. Rocky Mountain Hospita......
-
White v. Adamek
...preliminary injunction as being beyond the trial court's jurisdiction because a complaint had not been filed, White v. Department of Institutions, 883 P.2d 575 (Colo.App.1994) (not selected for official publication), White was moved from the DOI facility to the diagnostic unit of the DOC up......
-
COLORADO RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
...not properly invoked when court order entered. Gutierrez v. District Court, 183 Colo. 264, 516 P.2d 647 (1973); White v. Dept. of Inst., 883 P.2d 575 (Colo. App. 1994).Rule 4. Process (a) To What Applicable. This Rule applies to all process except as otherwise provided by these rules. (b) I......
-
RULE 3
...not properly invoked when court order entered. Gutierrez v. District Court, 183 Colo. 264, 516 P.2d 647 (1973); White v. Dept. of Inst., 883 P.2d 575 (Colo. App....
-
Rule 3 COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION.
...not properly invoked when court order entered. Gutierrez v. District Court, 183 Colo. 264, 516 P.2d 647 (1973); White v. Dept. of Inst., 883 P.2d 575 (Colo. App....
-
Chapter 6 - § 6.1 INJUNCTIONS AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDERS, GENERALLY
...13-14-104 (Civil Protection Orders).[3] Baseline Farms Two, LLP v. Hennings, 26 P.3d 1209 (Colo. App. 2001).[4] White v. Dep't of Insts., 883 P.2d 575 (Colo. App. 1994).[5] In re Vuitton Et Fils S.A., 606 F.2d 1 (2d Cir. 1979). [6] C.R.C.P. 7(b). See also Bd. of County Comm'rs v. Pfeifer, 1......