Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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. Medina

Court of Appeals of Colorado, Second Division

July 3, 2019

The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Delano M. Medina, Defendant-Appellant.

          Prior Opinion Announced April 25, 2019, Withdrawn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 ...


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.