2012 COA 156
Colo. Ct. App.2012Background
- People appeal a pretrial order dismissing two theft counts against Simpson.
- Simpson is charged with several offenses, including theft and theft by receiving, as class 3 felonies for property valued at $20,000 or more.
- In September 2011, after plea negotiations, Simpson sought a preliminary hearing rather than plead guilty, and one was scheduled.
- The People later moved to vacate the preliminary hearing; the court denied the motion.
- At the preliminary hearing the People declined to present evidence on the two thefts, and those counts were dismissed; the People timely appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to a preliminary hearing for the theft counts | Simpson argues the theft counts lack right to prelim hearing because they are sentence enhancers. | Simpson contends the offense includes value as part of the charge, triggering the right to a prelim. | Simpson entitled to a preliminary hearing; court erred in dismissing. |
| Authority after plea entered | After plea, court loses authority to conduct a prelim hearing. | Prelim hearings can occur after a plea upon good cause; not barred by plea entry. | Authority remained; the hearing could proceed and the order was permissible to review. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Garcia, 176 P.3d 872 (Colo.App.2007) (distinguishes mere sentence enhancers from substance of offense)
- Maestas v. District Court, 189 Colo. 443, 541 P.2d 889 (Colo.1975) (no prelim hearing on habitual criminal charges)
- Brown v. District Court, 194 Colo. 45, 569 P.2d 1390 (Colo.1977) (no prelim hearing on a sentence enhancer for crime-of-violence)
- Hodge, 694 P.2d 1277 (Colo.App.1984) (no prelim hearing on habitual criminal charges)
- People v. Jamison, 220 P.3d 992 (Colo.App.2009) (characterizing property value as a sentence enhancer)
- People v. Adargo, 622 P.2d 593 (Colo.App.1980) (arraignment irregularities do not affect validity of proceedings)