2019 CO 97
Colo.2019Background:
- Douglas Baker was arrested in Florida in 2011 on a 2009 Colorado warrant, extradited to Jefferson County, and remained in custody through disposition.
- In July 2012 Baker pleaded guilty to sexual assault on a child and was sentenced to 10 years to life; the mittimus credited him with 364 days of presentence confinement credit (PSCC).
- Baker later claimed the mittimus omitted 18 days he spent in custody in Florida before extradition; in April 2015 he filed a pro se motion labeled Crim. P. 35(a) seeking correction.
- The People agreed Baker was owed the 18 days; the district court granted the additional credit and, at Baker’s request, characterized that ruling as under Rule 35(a).
- Baker then filed a Rule 35(c) collateral attack seeking to vacate his Sexually Violent Predator designation, arguing that the Rule 35(a) correction restarted the three‑year limitations period; the court of appeals agreed and remanded.
- The Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed, holding PSCC errors are not challenges to a sentence “not authorized by law” under Crim. P. 35(a) and that the proper remedy for the clerical omission was Rule 36.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a challenge to the amount of PSCC on the mittimus is a claim that the sentence was "not authorized by law" under Crim. P. 35(a) | People: PSCC is not a component of the sentence; it is a separate credit and thus not a Rule 35(a) "not authorized by law" claim. | Baker: Omitted PSCC makes the sentence unauthorized; correction fits Rule 35(a). | Held: No. PSCC is credit earned pre‑sentence, not a sentence component, so a PSCC dispute is not a Rule 35(a) "not authorized by law" claim. |
| Whether correction of a sentence "not authorized by law" restarts the three‑year collateral‑attack deadline | People: Because PSCC correction was not a Rule 35(a) "not authorized by law" correction, it did not restart the collateral‑attack clock. | Baker: The Rule 35(a) correction restarted the three‑year limitations period (relying on Leyva). | Held: Court did not reach the general rule but concluded Baker’s claim did not alter his sentence finality; his Rule 35(c) attack was untimely. |
| Proper procedural mechanism to correct an inadvertent PSCC omission | People: The omission was clerical/oversight and should be corrected under Crim. P. 36. | Baker: Framed his request under Rule 35(a) (and later argued Rule 35(c)). | Held: Rule 36 is the appropriate vehicle for correcting clerical mistakes or omissions in PSCC at any time; the 18‑day credit should have been corrected under Rule 36. |
Key Cases Cited
- Leyva v. People, 184 P.3d 48 (Colo. 2008) (addressed effect of correcting illegal sentences on collateral‑attack timing)
- Edwards v. People, 196 P.3d 1138 (Colo. 2008) (describes PSCC as time credit earned while awaiting sentencing)
- People v. Ostuni, 58 P.3d 531 (Colo. 2002) (sentencing court must state PSCC in mittimus; DOC deducts PSCC from sentence)
- Massey v. People, 736 P.2d 19 (Colo. 1987) (defendant challenged PSCC via Rule 35 filings; treated as timely "illegal manner" claims)
- People v. Freeman, 735 P.2d 879 (Colo. 1987) (similar treatment of PSCC challenge within Rule 35 time limits)
- People v. Glover, 893 P.2d 1311 (Colo. 1995) (discusses Rule 36 authority to correct clerical mistakes and record omissions)