Farmer v. Colorado Parks & Wildlife Commission
2016 COA 120
Colo. Ct. App.2016Background
- Bobby R. Farmer, a former registered outfitter, pleaded guilty in 2011 to one count of illegal sale/outfitting (guiding a mountain lion hunt that crossed into Colorado) in exchange for a two‑year deferred judgment and a two‑year condition prohibiting hunting/guiding; five other counts were dismissed.
- Under § 33-6-113(2)(a), a conviction for illegal sale of big game authorizes the Colorado Parks & Wildlife Commission to suspend wildlife license privileges from one year to life; Farmer faced an administrative show-cause hearing before the Commission on suspension.
- The hearing officer reviewed a 300‑page DOW investigative file (which described facts underlying all six original counts), took limited testimony, and then ordered a 20‑year suspension of Farmer’s wildlife privileges.
- The hearing officer’s order and the Commission’s affirmance referenced multiple dismissed counts and treated Farmer’s conduct as a serious, deliberate pattern; they also cited prior cases imposing 15 years–life suspensions on other licensees.
- Farmer sought judicial review under the APA; the district court affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding the Commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously because neither the statute nor regulations supplied standards to constrain suspension length, and vacated the 20‑year suspension.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statutory/regulatory standards sufficiently constrain Commission discretion to set suspension length under § 33-6-113(2)(a) | Farmer: statute and regulations provide no standards to guide suspension length; lack of standards permits arbitrary outcomes | Commission: inherent factors (mens rea, felony status, prosecution resources, past comparable suspensions) and practice supply adequate guidance | Held: No. Neither statute nor regulations provide standards; absence of constraints renders suspension arbitrary and capricious and violates § 24-4-104(2) |
| Whether Farmer waived the challenge to lack of standards by not raising it administratively | Farmer: issue is pure law and hearing officer lacked authority to resolve it, so it may be raised on appeal | Commission: issue was not preserved because not raised at administrative level or earlier in district court | Held: Issue preserved for review—pure legal question, no factfinding required, and parties were afforded briefing opportunities |
| Whether the hearing officer impermissibly considered unproven/dismissed conduct from the investigative file | Farmer: hearing officer relied on facts underlying dismissed counts and investigative reports beyond the conviction | Commission: decision considered only the conviction; references to other conduct were not determinative | Held: Court assumed only the conviction was considered but found that even considering only the conviction, no standards explained the 20‑year term; ambiguity reinforced arbitrariness |
| Proper remedy for arbitrary suspension | Farmer: suspension must be vacated | Commission: (implicitly) remand for new proceedings or affirm | Held: Vacatur of the suspension without remand — status quo restored because suspension occurred under defective procedures; remand would be futile absent standards |
Key Cases Cited
- Elizondo v. State, Dep’t of Revenue, 570 P.2d 518 (Colo. 1977) (agency power to grant probationary licenses invalid without standards; remand required until rules promulgated)
- Cottrell v. City & County of Denver, 636 P.2d 703 (Colo. 1981) (administrative discretion must be constrained by standards to prevent arbitrary decisionmaking)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. City of Lakewood, 788 P.2d 808 (Colo. 1990) (standards give fair notice, ensure uniformity, and enable meaningful review)
- Douglas County Bd. of Comm’rs v. Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 829 P.2d 1303 (Colo. 1992) (broad agency discretion upheld where statute required a specific finding and related rules guided the review)
- Kibler v. State, 718 P.2d 531 (Colo. 1986) (statute with enumerated misconduct and penalty ranges can supply sufficient guidance for disciplinary action)
- Feeney v. Colo. Ltd. Gaming Control Comm’n, 890 P.2d 173 (Colo. App. 1994) (revocation or discipline without adequate standards is arbitrary and capricious)