People v. Butler
2017 COA 117
| Colo. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In 1992–1995 Butler allegedly sexually assaulted a child; he was convicted in 1995 on unrelated charges and given a Colorado sentence.
- From 1999–2006 DOC transferred Butler to a Minnesota facility where he served the remainder of his Colorado sentence.
- In 2007, after Butler’s 2006 release and a subsequent contact attempt, the victim reported the earlier abuse and Colorado charged Butler with offenses committed in the 1992–1995 period.
- At the time of the offenses the applicable limitations period was a straightforward ten years; the General Assembly amended the statute in 2002 (to extend certain windows), but Summers later held that amendment did not apply retroactively to crimes committed before its effective date.
- Butler moved to dismiss as time-barred; the prosecution argued (1) the 2002 amendment made the charges timely, and alternatively (2) the limitations period was tolled while Butler was absent from Colorado serving his sentence in Minnesota. The trial court denied dismissal; Butler later sought Crim. P. 35(c) relief arguing the charges were time-barred.
- The postconviction court denied relief, ruling the limitations period was tolled during Butler’s Minnesota incarceration; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Colorado inmate transferred to an out‑of‑state facility is "absent from the state" so as to toll the statute of limitations | Tolling applies because the defendant was physically outside Colorado while serving his Colorado sentence | No tolling: defendant was not truly absent — transfer was involuntary and DOC retained jurisdiction | Held: "Absent" refers to physical nonpresence; tolling applies even if transfer was by DOC or involuntary |
| Whether Butler’s statute‑of‑limitations claim is barred by the Crim. P. 35(c) abuse‑of‑process rule because it could have been raised on direct appeal | Claim is barred as it could have been raised earlier | Statute‑of‑limitations challenge implicates subject‑matter jurisdiction and is exempt from the bar | Held: Not barred — a statute‑of‑limitations challenge is a subject‑matter jurisdictional claim and may be raised in postconviction relief |
| Whether failure to plead absence in the information deprived the court of jurisdiction | Information appeared timely (relying on 2002 amendment); alternatively, amendment or tolling rationale cures pleading defect | The information facially shows the charge was time‑barred and lacks allegation taking it out of the statute | Held: No deprivation — charges appeared timely when filed; court accepted prosecution’s tolling/alternative theory and could have (and effectively did) treat that as allowing amendment to cure any pleading defect |
| Whether the tolling factual predicate had to be alleged and proved to a jury (Apprendi argument) | No jury finding required; tolling is a legal determination when facts are undisputed | Apprendi requires jury find facts increasing punishment or elements; tolling is similar and thus needs jury | Held: No Apprendi violation — tolling is not an element or sentencing factor; where the underlying facts are undisputed the court may decide the legal significance without submitting to a jury |
Key Cases Cited
- Bustamante v. Dist. Court, 329 P.2d 1013 (Colo. 1958) (statute of limitations in criminal cases characterized as jurisdictional)
- People v. Summers, 208 P.3d 251 (Colo. 2009) (2002 limitations amendment not applied retroactively to crimes committed before its effective date)
- People v. Wilson, 251 P.3d 507 (Colo. App. 2010) (discussing legislative modification of subject‑matter jurisdiction and limits on waiver)
- People v. Verbrugge, 998 P.2d 43 (Colo. App. 1999) (treating statute‑of‑limitations challenge as jurisdictional)
- State v. Stillings, 778 P.2d 406 (Mont. 1989) (out‑of‑state incarceration tolled limitations; physical absence sufficient)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (facts that increase punishment/elements must be submitted to jury; court explains Apprendi did not apply to tolling here)