Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Corrections v. Fetzer
2017 CO 77
| Colo. | 2017Background
- Raymond Fetzer is serving multiple convictions imposed between 1988 and 2000, including several long concurrent sentences and at least one consecutive sentence.
- CDOC calculated his parole eligibility solely by treating his longest concurrent 30‑year sentence as the "governing sentence," producing a much later parole eligibility date than Fetzer claimed he should have.
- Fetzer petitioned under C.R.C.P. 106(a)(2) to compel recalculation, asserting the statute requiring all separate sentences be "construed as one continuous sentence" requires crediting and parole calculations from the continuous sentence beginning with his earliest effective date.
- The district court dismissed Fetzer’s petition; the court of appeals reversed, holding the continuous‑sentence statute applies to concurrent as well as consecutive sentences and that the governing‑sentence method could not apply because Fetzer’s sentences were governed by the same parole provisions.
- The Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether CDOC may substitute the longest concurrent sentence for the statutorily required continuous sentence and how governing‑sentence principles fit with the continuous‑sentence statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Fetzer) | Defendant's Argument (Exec. Dir.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §17‑22.5‑101’s continuous‑sentence rule apply to concurrent sentences? | Yes — all separate sentences (concurrent or consecutive) must be construed as one continuous sentence. | The continuous‑sentence rule applies only to consecutive sentences. | Continuous‑sentence rule applies to both concurrent and consecutive separate sentences. |
| May CDOC compute parole eligibility solely by using the longest concurrent sentence (substituting it for the continuous sentence)? | No — substituting the longest sentence violates the statutory continuous‑sentence requirement. | Yes — prior precedent and CDOC practice allow using a "governing sentence" (longest) to determine parole incidents. | No — CDOC cannot simply substitute the longest sentence for the continuous sentence; prior governing‑sentence uses are applications to, not substitutes for, the continuous sentence. |
| When is a governing‑sentence analysis appropriate? | Governing‑sentence may be used only to resolve conflicting parole schemes; not when all sentences are governed by the same parole provisions. | Governing‑sentence method generally governs calculation of credits/incidents for multiple sentences. | Governing‑sentence (or similar device) may be necessary where separate sentences are governed by different statutory parole schemes; it serves to identify applicable parole provisions for the single continuous sentence. |
| Remedy/remand instructions: should CDOC simply recalculate under court of appeals approach? | Recalculate treating all sentences as one continuous sentence from earliest effective date with appropriate credits. | Recalculate using CDOC’s governing‑sentence practice as previously applied. | Affirmed reversal of district court; reversed the court of appeals’ specific remand order. Case remanded to district court for further proceedings so CDOC can determine and apply (in a lawful manner) the statutes applicable to the composite continuous sentence; a governing‑sentence or comparable method may be used only to identify applicable parole incidents, not to replace the continuous sentence requirement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Price v. Mills, 728 P.2d 715 (Colo. 1986) (approved CDOC using a composite/governing sentence to apply credits where sentences arose under different schemes)
- People v. Broga, 750 P.2d 59 (Colo. 1988) (deferred to CDOC interpretation using longest sentence where reasonable)
- Vaughn v. Gunter, 820 P.2d 659 (Colo. 1991) (applied governing‑sentence analysis for concurrent sentences with differing parole incidents)
- Thiret v. Kautzky, 792 P.2d 801 (Colo. 1990) (addressed relationship between parole eligibility and mandatory release under varying sentencing schemes)
- Spoto v. Dep’t of Corr., 883 P.2d 11 (Colo. 1994) (discussed limits on when governing‑sentence analysis controls parole dates)
- Badger v. Suthers, 985 P.2d 1042 (Colo. 1999) (held governing‑sentence cannot override effects of consecutive sentences)
- Ankeney v. Raemisch, 344 P.3d 847 (Colo. 2015) (surveyed evolution of Colorado sentencing/parole schemes and statutory credit regimes)