Prior
Opinion Announced April 25, 2019, Withdrawn
City
and County of Denver District Court No. 15CR3728 Honorable
Sheila A. Rappaport, Judge.
Philip
J. Weiser, Attorney General, Brock J. Swanson, Assistant
Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Delano
M. Medina, Pro Se.
OPINION
FURMAN
JUDGE.
¶
1 Defendant, Delano M. Medina, pleaded guilty to second
degree assault and was sentenced to four years in the custody
of the Department of Corrections. Medina then filed two
motions asking the court to dismiss his conviction under the
Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act (UMDDA),
sections 16-14-101 to -108, C.R.S. 2018. Medina's first
motion was a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction pursuant to C.R.C.P. 60(b)(4), and his second
motion was a postconviction motion pursuant to Crim. P.
35(c). The district court construed both motions as a
petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Crim. P.
35(c). The court then denied the motions.
¶
2 On appeal, Medina contends that the district court lacked
jurisdiction to accept his guilty plea and should have
dismissed the case under section 16-14-104, C.R.S. 2018. His
contention is based on the premise that he was not brought to
trial within the statutorily required time period under the
UMDDA. Because we disagree with Medina's contention, we
affirm the district court's order.
I.
UMDDA
¶
3 Medina contends that he made a valid request for final
disposition in accordance with the requirements of the UMDDA,
and that the district court did not have jurisdiction under
section 16-14-104 to accept his guilty plea because more than
182 days had passed after his request. We are not persuaded.
A.
Standard of Review
¶
4 We review the summary denial of a postconviction motion de
novo. People v. Aguilar, 2012 COA 181, ¶ 6. In
postconviction proceedings, the legality of the judgment and
the regularity of the proceedings are presumed. Id.
¶
5 We note that in ruling on Medina's motion, it appears
that the district court did not address the requirements of
the UMDDA. But a district court's ruling may be upheld on
any ground supported by the record, regardless of whether
that ground was relied upon or even contemplated by the
court. See People v. Scott, 116 P.3d 1231, 1233
(Colo.App. 2004).
B.
Applicable Law under UMDDA
¶
6 The UMDDA gives prisoners a mechanism for insisting on
speedy and final disposition of untried charges. People
v. McKimmy, 2014 CO 76, ¶ 22. It allows "[a]ny
person who is in the custody of the department of
corrections" to request a "final disposition of any
untried indictment, information, or criminal complaint."
§ 16-14-102(1), C.R.S. 2018. "The request shall be
in writing addressed to the court in which the indictment,
information, or criminal complaint is pending and to the
prosecuting official." Id. The defendant must
deliver the request to the superintendent where he or she is
...