2019 CO 61
Colo.2019Background
- Petitioner Richard S. Jones filed a pro se habeas corpus petition challenging the Colorado DOC’s calculation of his parole eligibility date (PED), alleging DOC used only a 2008 conviction and ignored two 1991 convictions.
- Jones attached the mittimus for the 2008 conviction but initially did not include mittimuses for the 1991 convictions referenced in his petition.
- The DOC moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing statutory noncompliance with § 13-45-101(1)’s requirement that a habeas petition be accompanied by a warrant of commitment (mittimus) for each conviction.
- The Fremont County district court granted dismissal for lack of jurisdiction; Jones appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court reviewed whether failing to attach required mittimuses is a jurisdictional defect that requires summary dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to attach all warrants of commitment to a habeas petition deprives the court of jurisdiction | Jones: Petition alleging convictions and attaching the latest mittimus sufficiently invoked district court jurisdiction and merited merits review | DOC: Statutory warrant requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional; noncompliance requires dismissal | The court held the warrant requirement is procedural, not jurisdictional; noncompliance does not divest the court of authority to act |
| What the court should do when a petition lacks some mittimuses | Jones: Court should consider merits or allow supplementation | DOC: Court must dismiss for lack of jurisdiction rather than permit supplementation | Court: If missing mittimuses are necessary, court may order the petitioner to provide them or proceed based on the record provided |
Key Cases Cited
- Butler v. Zavaras, 924 P.2d 1060 (Colo. 1996) (addressed warrant requirement as jurisdictional in prior precedent)
- Evans v. District Court, 572 P.2d 811 (Colo. 1977) (held the warrant requirement mandatory and jurisdictional)
- Garrett v. Knight, 480 P.2d 569 (Colo. 1971) (described the warrant requirement as jurisdictional)
- McNamara v. People, 410 P.2d 517 (Colo. 1966) (stated petitions lacking warrant copies cannot be acted upon)
- Wright v. Tinsley, 365 P.2d 691 (Colo. 1961) (recognized the warrant’s evidentiary importance but assessed merits despite noncompliance)
- Nowak v. Suthers, 320 P.3d 340 (Colo. 2014) (procedural context for habeas appeals to the Supreme Court)