2013 COA 19
Colo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Defendant Peter Leo Dinkel pleaded guilty in 2002 to sexual assault on a child under fifteen by a person in a position of trust, a class 3 felony.
- He was sentenced to an indeterminate twenty-year-to-life term of sex offender intensive supervision probation (SOISP) under the Sex Offender Lifetime Supervision Act.
- In 2010, the trial court modified probation from SOISP to regular Sex Offender Supervision.
- In 2011, Dinkel moved to terminate probation entirely; the prosecution argued the request was premature because the twenty-year minimum had not been completed, and the court denied the motion.
- The issue presented is whether the probation term can be terminated before twenty years, given the Act’s minimum and review provisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can probation be terminated before twenty years? | Dinkel argues the court has discretion to modify or terminate early. | State contends the Act mandates a minimum twenty-year term with review after twenty years. | Court may not discharge before twenty years; Act controls. |
| Does 18-1.3-1008(2) authorize discharge after twenty years based on progress? | Progress in treatment and recommendations could permit discharge after twenty years. | Discharge after twenty years is possible only under the statutory review provisions. | Discharge considerations apply only after completing twenty years. |
| Does 18-1.3-204(4)(a) permit pre- twenty-year discharge by conflicting with the Act? | Section 18-1.3-204(4)(a) could be read to allow termination of probation. | The Act’s minimum and discharge provisions govern; 18-1.3-204(4)(a) does not permit pre- twenty-year discharge. | Provision conflicts with 18-1.3-1004(2) and 18-1.3-1008(2); the Act’s specific terms prevail. |
| Is the rule of lenity applicable? | Lenity could resolve any statutory ambiguity in favor of discharge. | No ambiguity exists; lenity cannot create a discharge right. | Rule of lenity inapplicable. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Valenzuela, 216 P.3d 588 (Colo. 2009) (statutory interpretation and discretion in probation/sentencing contexts)
- People v. Trujillo, 261 P.3d 485 (Colo. App. 2010) (statutory construction and reading provisions in context)
- People v. Valenzuela, 98 P.3d 951 (Colo. App. 2004) (discretion to release from SOISP under certain circumstances)
- People v. Harris, 914 P.2d 425 (Colo. App. 1995) (rule of lenity not used to create ambiguity)
- Bostelman v. People, 162 P.3d 686 (Colo. 2007) (statutory construction principles; harmonize provisions)