2012 COA 100
Colo. Ct. App.2012Background
- Gandy, a Canadian citizen serving a life sentence, sought transfer to Canada to serve the remainder of his sentence; DOC denied the transfer and Gandy sued alleging the denial violated the federal treaty.
- The Regulation 550-05(C)(7) states an offender may not be eligible for transfer if convicted with a life sentence, which DOC used to deny Gandy.
- The Transfer of Offenders Treaty between the U.S. and Canada (1987 treaty) permits transfers and makes life-sentence offenders eligible for transfer under Art. III, §7(a).
- Colorado law authorizes transfer decisions under Reg. 550-05 and C.R.S. 24-60-2301, delegating authority to the DOC to approve transfers under treaty terms.
- The district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(5) for failure to state a claim; on appeal, the court held the Regulation improperly preempts the Treaty and vacated/remanded for reconsideration consistent with the ruling.
- Court concludes the Treaty preempts applying the Regulation to render life-sentence offenders ineligible for transfer and remands for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Regulation 550-05(IV)(C)(7) conflict with the Treaty and violate the Supremacy Clause? | Gandy argues the Regulation abrogates the Treaty and is preempted. | DOC contends Regulation governs transfer eligibility including life sentences per treaty terms. | Yes; Regulation cannot render life-sentence offenders ineligible; Treaty preempts Regulation. |
| Can DOC apply the Regulation to deny Gandy's transfer despite the Treaty? | Regulation cannot be applied to defeat a treaty-right to transfer. | Regulation provides criteria for transfer consideration and life-sentence status precludes eligibility. | No; DOC may not apply Regulation to defeat the Treaty. |
| Does the complaint state a claim upon which relief can be granted? | Gandy states DOC misapplied Regulation contrary to the Treaty. | The Treaty did not grant an unconditional transfer right independent of regulation. | Yes; Gandy stated a viable Supremacy-Clause claim and dismissal was improper. |
| Should the district court's dismissal be affirmed on remand if reconciliation with the Treaty is possible? | Judicial review requires applying Treaty over conflicting Regulation. | Case may be resolved after reconsideration under the Treaty with Regulation inapplicable. | Remand required to resolve consistent with treaty-first approach. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, 548 U.S. 331 (2006) (treaties bind states per Supremacy Clause; preemption when conflicting with federal law)
- Sapp v. El Paso County Dep't of Human Services, 181 P.3d 1179 (Colo. App. 2008) (conflict preemption doctrine; Supremacy Clause governs preemption by federal law)
- In re Marriage of Anderson, 252 P.3d 490 (Colo. App. 2010) (Supremacy Clause considerations in applying federal law to state actions)
- Gramiger v. Crowley, 660 P.2d 1279 (Colo. 1983) (mandamus standards; duty to act in light of applicable law)
- Denver Post Corp. v. Ritter, 255 P.3d 1083 (Colo. 2011) (standard for reviewing dismissal under Rule 12(b)(5) and de novo review)