Wiegand v. County Court Magistrate In and For County of Larimer, 96CA0241
| Decision Date | 24 October 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 96CA0241,96CA0241 |
| Citation | 937 P.2d 880 |
| Parties | Gerhard WIEGAND, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COUNTY COURT MAGISTRATE IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF LARIMER, Janet L. Rodriguez, Honorable County Court Magistrate, Honorable Ronald L. Schultz, Judge and Honorable John E. Kochenburger, Judge, Respondents-Appellees. . IV |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
David F. Vela, Colorado State Public Defender, Andrew A. Saliman, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Gale A. Norton, Attorney General, Stephen K. ErkenBrack, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Timothy M. Tymkovich, Solicitor General, Maurice G. Knaizer, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, for Respondents-Appellees.
Opinion by Judge NEY.
In this C.R.C.P. 106(a)(2) mandamus action, petitioner, Gerhard Wiegand, appeals from the district court judgment rejecting his challenge to the validity of an internal policy that prohibited a county court magistrate in the underlying criminal proceedings before the Larimer County Court from considering his motion for bond reduction. As did the district court, we conclude that the county court magistrate's authority over such matters was validly restricted in this proceeding and therefore, we affirm.
The record reveals that on August 27, 1995, petitioner was arrested and jailed on certain misdemeanor and petty offense charges. On August 28, 1995, these charges were filed in the Larimer County Court, and the court set bond at $500 cash, property, or surety. Petitioner remained in custody, apparently unable to post such bond.
On September 18, 1995, petitioner, still in custody, appeared with court-appointed counsel before a county court magistrate for further proceedings on these charges. At that time, petitioner waived his right to have his case heard by a county court judge and a date was set for a trial before the magistrate. Petitioner also requested that the magistrate conduct a hearing on his previously filed motion for bond reduction in which petitioner sought either a personal recognizance bond or a reduction in the amount of the bond.
The magistrate refused to consider the bond reduction motion, stating that she, as a magistrate, had been instructed and directed in writing by the county court judges not to change or alter any bonds. This prohibition, entitled "Modifying orders of County Court Judges," was contained in a memorandum dated June 1, 1995 and was signed by Larimer County Court judges Ronald L. Schultz and John E. Kochenburger. Noting that magistrates work "under the supervision and control" of the county court judges, the memorandum provides, in pertinent part, that:
Orders, warrants, bond conditions, mittimuses, and other directions issued by the various judges of this district cannot be vacated, modified or overruled by a Magistrate without the prior consent of Judge Schultz or Judge Kochenburger.
Petitioner thereafter filed this C.R.C.P. 106(a)(2) mandamus action in the district court, seeking an order compelling the magistrate to conduct a bond reduction hearing in the underlying county court criminal proceedings. Petitioner thereby sought to invalidate the Larimer County Court memorandum prohibiting such action by the magistrate, asserting that it was inconsistent with statutory authority empowering county court magistrates to perform such duties.
The district court rejected petitioner's arguments and denied the relief sought. Although the district court agreed with petitioner that county court magistrates are authorized by statute and by rule to perform many duties, including conducting bond modification hearings, it did not find such authority to be persuasive. Rather, the district court ruled that the authority of such magistrates, as judicial officers serving under the direction and control of their appointing authorities, is also subject to any limitations that such appointing authorities, in their discretion, may choose to impose on the scope and extent of the duties the magistrates may perform.
Thus, while not addressing "the wisdom and appropriateness" of the Larimer County Court memorandum, the district court ruled that the limitations expressed in that memorandum as to the magistrates' authority to conduct bond modification hearings are "consistent with Colorado law" regarding the power of the appointing authority "to regulate the assignments given" to the magistrate. Finally, noting that petitioner was statutorily entitled to a prompt bond reconsideration hearing, the district court ruled that since an administrative decision has been made that the county court magistrate should not hold such hearings, the county court judges must promptly provide such a hearing in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re the Parental Responsibilities of M.B.–m., 09CA2447.
...than a judge authorized by statute or by these rules to enter orders or judgments in judicial proceedings”); cf. Wiegand v. County Court Magistrate, 937 P.2d 880 (Colo.App.1996) (use of magistrates for county court business is at the discretion of their appointing authorities; magistrates a......