Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

People v. Martinez

Court of Appeals of Colorado, Second Division

March 26, 2015

The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellant,
Andrew Joseph Martinez, Defendant-Appellee

Arapahoe County District Court No. 06CR1561. Honorable Elizabeth A. Weishaupl, Judge.

George H. Brauchler, District Attorney, Susan J. Trout, Senior Deputy District Attorney, Centennial, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Douglas K. Wilson, Colorado State Public Defender, Jon W. Grevillius, Deputy Public Defender, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellee.

Opinion by JUDGE GRAHAM. Casebolt and Dunn, JJ., concur.


Page 987


[¶1] The People appeal from the district court's order dismissing their petition to revoke the Youthful Offender System (YOS) sentence of defendant, Andrew Joseph Martinez, based on its finding that it lost jurisdiction over the case because defendant's YOS sentence had expired. The People also appeal from the district court's order denying their motion to reconsider. We disapprove of those portions of the district court's orders concluding it lacked jurisdiction, but affirm based on the court's discretion to dismiss the revocation proceeding for violation of the YOS statute.


[¶2] The underlying facts of this case are not in dispute. On April 30, 2007, defendant pleaded guilty to first degree assault in Arapahoe County. He received a sentence of eighteen years in the custody of the Department of Corrections (DOC) suspended upon successful completion of a six year sentence to YOS. He received 348 days of presentence confinement, making the expected discharge

Page 988

date of his YOS sentence May 12, 2012.

[¶3] On January 18, 2012, while serving the community supervision portion of his YOS sentence, defendant walked away from his YOS residential center. On February 22, 2012, defendant was arrested in Denver and subsequently transferred to Larimer County to face a charge of felony escape.[1]

[¶4] On March 1, 2012, while in Larimer County, defendant was served with a notice of charges alleging that he violated the DOC code of penal discipline when he left the YOS facility. On March 6, 2012, after an administrative hearing, defendant was found guilty of escape without force.

[¶5] May 12, 2012, the date defendant's YOS sentence was set to expire, passed without the prosecution filing any documents related to revocation proceedings against defendant in Arapahoe County.

[¶6] On November 16, 2012, defendant pleaded guilty in Larimer County to attempted escape and was sentenced to two years in the custody of the DOC. On November 20, 2012, defendant attended a DOC suitability hearing, which resulted in a recommendation that his YOS sentence be revoked. The YOS warden and the DOC executive director subsequently upheld the revocation recommendation.

[¶7] On December 31, 2012, the prosecution received a request from the DOC seeking the revocation of defendant's YOS sentence and resentencing to eighteen years in the custody of the DOC. The prosecution filed a motion for revocation with the district court on February 11, 2013, requesting a hearing to revoke defendant's YOS sentence prior to April 30, 2013. It appears from the record that the prosecution failed to account for defendant's presentence confinement credit and believed defendant's YOS sentence would expire on April 30, 2013.

[¶8] Defendant filed two motions to dismiss, alleging that the district court no longer had jurisdiction to revoke his YOS sentence because the sentence had expired on May 12, 2012. The prosecution responded to both motions arguing that defendant's YOS sentence was tolled, but failed to attach any evidence relating to defendant's arrest, the DOC administrative proceedings, or other pertinent matters.

[¶9] On March 21, 2013, the court held a hearing on defendant's motions and, again, the prosecution failed to present any evidence supporting its argument that defendant's YOS sentence was tolled.

[¶10] Following the hearing, the district court issued a written order concluding that it had lost jurisdiction over defendant because the revocation proceeding had not been initiated prior to the expiration of defendant's YOS sentence.

This Court is of the opinion that the delay in filing for Defendant's revocation denied him due process under the law. Defendant was picked up for Escape in February 2012. His YOS sentence was set to terminate in May 2012. While the Court understands why the prosecution waited for the outcome on the Escape case before filing charges in the YOS case, the delay was lengthy and resulted in the Motion for Revocation not being filed until eleven months after the incident prompting revocation, and nine months after Defendant's YOS sentence terminated. The People could have, as the prosecution did in [ People v. Miller, 25 P.3d 1230 (Colo. 2001)], filed a detainer, or something, in order to toll the YOS sentence and put the court on notice of an infraction. Instead, they filed nothing and now seek to have a completed sentence revoked and the suspended, and completed, sentence imposed. This the Court cannot do.

The court also concluded it lacked jurisdiction to revoke defendant's sentence because

Page 989

the DOC failed to transport him to county jail for resentencing within thirty-five days of the DOC executive director's upholding the revocation recommendation, as required by section 18-1.3-407(5)(c), C.R.S. 2014.

[¶11] On May 16, 2013, forty-one days after the district court issued its ruling, the prosecution filed a motion to reconsider and attached nine exhibits containing information pertaining to defendant's arrest and the DOC administrative proceedings ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.