People v. Stellabotte
421 P.3d 174
Colo.2018Background
- John Stellabotte owned a towing company and in 2012 illegally towed two cars; at the time those acts fell within Colorado's class 4 felony theft range.
- In 2013 the General Assembly amended the theft statute, reclassifying certain thefts (values $5,000–$20,000) from class 4 to class 5 felony; the amendment was silent on retroactivity.
- Stellabotte was convicted and later sentenced as a habitual offender under the pre-amendment (class 4) law to concurrent 24-year terms; neither party raised the 2013 amendment at sentencing.
- On appeal a split division of the court of appeals held the 2013 amendment applied retroactively to non‑final convictions; the People sought review.
- The Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari and held that ameliorative statutory amendments that are silent as to retroactivity apply retroactively to convictions that were not final when the amendment took effect, under § 18-1-410(1)(f).
- The Court affirmed the lower court, concluding Stellabotte was entitled to sentencing under the class 5 felony scheme (12 years per count under the habitual-offender multiplier), and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Stellabotte) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a statutory amendment that reduces criminal punishment but is silent on retroactivity applies to convictions not yet final | The statutory-presumption statutes (§§ 2-4-202, 2-4-303) and precedent require prospectivity unless the legislature clearly indicates retroactive intent | Thomas and related cases entitle defendants to benefit from ameliorative amendments that take effect before the conviction is final; § 18-1-410(1)(f) allows retroactive application | Held: Ameliorative, amendatory criminal legislation that is silent on retroactivity applies retroactively to non-final convictions under § 18-1-410(1)(f), unless the amendment expressly limits application to prospective cases. |
| Whether § 18-1-410(1)(f) is overridden by general presumptions of prospectivity in §§ 2-4-202 and 2-4-303 | The general prospective-presumption statutes control and preclude retroactivity absent express legislative intent | § 18-1-410(1)(f) is a specific statutory mechanism for retroactive application during direct appeal and should operate as an exception to the general presumptions | Held: § 18-1-410(1)(f) is the more specific provision and functions as an exception to the general prospectivity presumptions. |
| Whether Thomas remains good law and controls | People argued later cases (Macias, McCoy, Riley) changed the rule and limited Thomas | Stellabotte argued Thomas remains binding for silent amendments and later cases are distinguishable or dicta | Held: Thomas remains good law; language in Macias/McCoy/Riley that appears to require express retroactivity is dicta and disavowed to the extent it conflicts with Thomas. |
| Remedy and scope of relief | People argued retroactivity should not apply here | Stellabotte sought resentencing under the amended statute for the counts that were silent as to retroactivity | Held: Relief is limited to convictions not yet final when amendment took effect; the Court ordered that Stellabotte be sentenced under the class 5 scheme for the relevant felony theft counts. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Thomas, 185 Colo. 395, 525 P.2d 1136 (Colo. 1974) (ameliorative statutory changes apply to convictions not final when change takes effect under § 18-1-410 predecessor)
- People v. Thornton, 187 Colo. 202, 529 P.2d 628 (Colo. 1974) (applies Thomas to sentencing changes on direct appeal)
- People v. Macias, 631 P.2d 584 (Colo. 1981) (statute expressly limited to offenses on or after a date must be applied prospectively)
- People v. McCoy, 764 P.2d 1171 (Colo. 1988) (no ameliorative benefit when legislature clearly limited retroactivity by statute)
- Riley v. People, 828 P.2d 254 (Colo. 1992) (held prospectivity where statute expressly prospective; statements requiring express retroactivity treated as dicta by majority in this case)