2019 CO 13
Colo.2019Background
- Tafoya was arrested on multiple charges and remains in custody because she could not post bond; the complaint charged DUI — fourth or subsequent offense — as a class 4 felony under §42-4-1301(1)(a).
- The prosecution also charged other felonies (vehicular eluding, criminal mischief) and sought to set prior DUI convictions in the information as required by statute.
- Tafoya requested a preliminary hearing on all felony counts under §16-5-301(1)(b)(II) and Crim. P. 7(h); the prosecution opposed the request for the felony DUI count.
- The district court denied a preliminary hearing for the DUI count, reasoning (relying on People v. Garcia) that the underlying DUI is substantively a misdemeanor and prior convictions operate only as a sentence enhancer, so no in-custody preliminary hearing was required.
- Tafoya sought original relief under C.A.R. 21; the Colorado Supreme Court granted review to decide whether an in-custody defendant charged with felony DUI is entitled to a preliminary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Tafoya) | Defendant's Argument (People) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an in-custody defendant accused of felony DUI is entitled to a preliminary hearing under §16-5-301(1)(b)(II) | The statute’s plain language entitles any defendant accused of a class 4 felony and in custody for that offense to a preliminary hearing; Tafoya was charged with a class 4 felony DUI. | The DUI count is substantively a misdemeanor; priors are a separate sentence enhancer (Garcia), so no preliminary hearing right. | Court held Tafoya was entitled to a preliminary hearing: the information accused her of a class 4 felony and she was in custody, so §16-5-301(1)(b)(II) applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Garcia, 176 P.3d 872 (Colo. App. 2007) (held habitual-offender allegation was a sentence enhancer, not a substantive felony, for preliminary-hearing purposes)
- People v. Simpson, 292 P.3d 1153 (Colo. App. 2012) (preliminary-hearing entitlement turns on whether defendant was charged with felony; whether an element or enhancer can be immaterial)
- Maestas v. District Court, 541 P.2d 889 (Colo. 1975) (no preliminary hearing required for sentence-enhancer charges under separate statute)
- Brown v. District Court, 569 P.2d 1390 (Colo. 1977) (violent-crime enhancer did not require a preliminary hearing)
- Harris v. Dist. Court, 843 P.2d 1316 (Colo. 1993) (recognizing statutory right to a judge-held preliminary hearing to determine probable cause)