2013 COA 114
Colo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Defendant Jason D. Back pleaded guilty in 2004 to sexual assault on a child and received sex-offender intensive supervised probation, later revoked to a 2 years-to-life DOC sentence plus 10 years-to-life parole.
- Released on parole in 2009; parole revoked in October 2010 after termination from sex-offender treatment for noncompliance; parole board returned him to DOC for the remainder of his natural life.
- Appellate body of the parole board affirmed; Back filed a Crim. P. 35(c) motion arguing the parole board lacked statutory authority to revoke parole for more than 180 days under § 17-2-103(11)(b)(IV).
- District court denied the motion, relying on § 17-2-103(11)(b)(V) to permit revocation for the remainder of the sentence; Back appealed.
- While appeal was pending Back was re-granted parole; court found the issue capable of repetition yet evading review and proceeded to decide it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether parole board may revoke sex-offender parole for remainder of indeterminate sentence | People: parole board acted within authority under SOLSA provision § 17-22.5-403(8)(b) (special statute) | Back: § 17-2-103(11)(b)(IV) (general parole revocation scheme) limits revocation to 180 days | Held: § 17-22.5-403(8)(b) controls for SOLSA sex offenders; parole may be revoked up to remainder of natural life |
| Whether §§ 17-22.5-403(8)(b) and 17-2-103(11)(b) can be harmonized | People: statutes conflict; specific, later SOLSA provision prevails | Back: general parole-revocation limits apply to him | Held: irreconcilable conflict; specific later SOLSA provision prevails as exception to general statute |
| Whether case is moot after re-parole | Back: argues mootness | People: issue capable of repetition yet evading review | Held: not moot — exception applies; court reaches merits |
| Whether district court erred in denying Crim. P. 35(c) | Back: denial erroneous if 180-day cap applies | People: denial correct under SOLSA authority | Held: affirmation of denial on different ground — SOLSA provision permits full-life revocation |
Key Cases Cited
- Grossman v. Dean, 80 P.3d 952 (Colo. App. 2003) (mootness doctrinal discussion)
- People v. Black, 915 P.2d 1257 (Colo. 1996) (exception for issues capable of repetition yet evading review)
- Martin v. People, 27 P.3d 846 (Colo. 2001) (statutory interpretation principles — specific v. general)
- People v. Dist. Court, 713 P.2d 918 (Colo. 1986) (plain‑meaning rule and avoiding absurd results)
- Danielson v. Castle Meadows, Inc., 791 P.2d 1106 (Colo. 1990) (context may change mandatory/directory meaning of "shall")
- People v. Chase, 411 P.3d 740 (Colo. App. 2013) (appellate affirmations may rest on grounds different from district court if supported by record)