People v. Valenzuela

588 rights

glеeted parent’s in the other care. Accord- control child and the custodial intervention, ingly, gener- parents. admission to the our Absent ally gain dispositional authority juvenile over used court will continue to enter orders parent agrees dependent custody who the child is concerning and care A.H. knowledge or re- neglected, any jurisdiction and but denies without to do so. Because sponsibility for because child jurisdiction time, that status lack of can be raised at T.R.W., parent. resides with the other 759 always being orders will these A.M., 769; P.2d at P.2d at 786 476-77. declared void. no-fault cannot A.P.’s admission sustain reasоns, foregoing For the I I am dissent. adjudication. The effect of ad A.H.’s A.P.’s authorized to state Justice Bender and mission concerned A.H.’s status while join Coats Justice dissent. care, jury A.H. and a was G.H.’s subse quently failing a verdict to find that returned dependent neglected

A.H. and in G.H.’s A.M., (holding at

care. 786 P.2d 479 See dependent neglected

children were not and

where the mother made no-fault admission petition’s allega

and father denied T.R.W.,

tions); 771; compare P.2d at 759 U.S., rel. 121 ex P.3d 326 PEOPLE State Colorado, depen (Colo.App.2005).(recognizingchild was Petitioner. neglected dent and where father admitted to petition’s allegations, several of the even VALENZUELA, Robert Gene though dependent child was found not and Jr., Respondent. carе). neglected in jury mother’s ‍‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌​‍Because dependent verdicts failed to find A.H. and No. 08SC418. care, neglected in contrary G.H.’s A.P.’s Colorado, Supreme Court of admission, juvenile jurisdic court lacks En Banc. this case. over view, my appro- In our 21 C.A.R. review is Sept. priate in this case on the basis that juvenile jurisdiction, court without a suffi- persuasive

cient and reason to intervene re-

gardless of expedited proceedings

C.A.R. and 3.4 whether failed appeal. G.H.

This has granted court often C.A.R. 21 relief wholly juris-

when courts have acted without jurisdiction. See,

diction or in excess of their Court,

e.g., People v. City Juvenile Denver, County (Colo.1996); P.2d

Peña v. District Court Second Judicial Dist, 681 P.2d 953

Here, jury because a determined that alle-

gations dependency neglect were not

proven evidence, preponderance juvenile ‍‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌​‍wholly jurisdic- court is without

tion to concerning continue enter orders parents. view, my

A.H. and her the most

important grant reason for this court

C.A.R. 21 relief is when acts jurisdiction,

absolutely no especially

when directing that court is the care Opinion

Justice MARTINEZ delivered Court.

I. Introduction Respondent Robert G. Valenzuela was con- victed, pursuant plea agreement, of con- a schedule II controlled to distribute class three violation substance —a —in 18-18^105(l)(a), (2008), and of section C.R.S. felony— degree kidnapping class two first —a 18-3-301(l)(a)(3), of section violation (2008).1 applied The trial court C.R.S. en- extraordinary risk of harm sentence 18- hancement contained (2008) 1.3-401(10)(b), (“extraordinary C.R.S. provision”), for to Valenzuela’s sentence II to distribute a schedule conspiracy charge. controlled substance held, appeal, appeals On the court of unpublished opinion, that the apply conspiracy does not II a schedule controlled substance distribute the trial for resen remanded Valenzuela, tencing. No. 06CA0026, (Colo.App. April 2008 WL 885987 2008). 18-18-405(l)(a) (“the Section sion”) enumerates number of different can be violated. list is Included within this substance, with the intent to dis- controlled substance distribute, pense, manufacture of a sell or substance, sale and distribution substance, conspiracy and a controlled dispense, manufacture a contrast, In the ex- controlled substance. provision only traordinary applies to distribution, manufacturing, pensing, Suthers, General, Attorney Mat- John W. the intent substance with Holman, Attorney Assistant thew S. First in sec- as defined Denver, Colorado, General, Attorneys Pe- Because, terms, the its 18-18-405.” titioner. apply ‍‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌​‍does not conspiracy sub- to distribute a controlled Associates, Vigil Law of Jami Office stance, Colorado, judgment the court Westminster, affirm the we Vigil, L. Attor- Jami appeals. Respondent. neys for 405(l)(a) 18-3-301(l)(a)(3) charged have not been 2004 under 1. Valenzuela sections 18—405(l)(a), (2004) and 18-3- C.R.S. amended since 18— 301(l)(a)(3), (2004). C.R.S. Sections 18-18- History napping ap- and Procedural sentence is not at II.Facts issue peal. calculating Valenzuela’s sentence on the appeal, sponte, appeals On sua the сourt of distribute sub- improperly held the sentence was enhanced degree kidnapping convic- stance and under the be- tions, applied a trial court number of a conspiracy cause to distribute controlled sentencing provisions statutory mandatory to not'brought scope substance within the First, conspir- in addition to the convictions. and there- acy a controlled substance and to distribute fore maximum sentence allowed under pleaded kidnapping, Valenzuela degree first years. the sentencing twenty-four statutes is guilty to a crime violence sentence en- kidnapping charge count on the hancement granted This court certiorari order 18-1.3-406(2)(a)(I)(A), under section C.R.S. to determine whether the (2008). also admitted Valenzuela to applies conspiracy to distribute a the controlled amount of substance involved substance, controlled as defined section grams, 450 subjecting was 25 to therefore 18—405(l)(a).2 agree Because we with the 18— mandatory sentencing him to minimum appeals conspiracy court of and find that to 18—405(3)(a)(I), provisions of section 18— distribute a controlled substance is not an pa- the offenses while on he committed extraordinary risk crime under section 18- role. 401(10),we affirm the below court 1.3— resentencing remand for with consistent presumptive range for a class three opinion. felony years imprisonment, to twelve is four 18-1.3-401(l)(a)(V)(A); person a who III.Standard of Review parole subject while on commits a up sentencing of to twice the maximum the Statutory interpretation ques is a 1.3—401(8)(a)(II). § presumptive range. tion of Kling 18— law de review. novo Additionally, parties assumed that con- 50, County er v. Adams Sch. Dist. No. 130 to distribute controlled substance (Colo.2006). 1027, P.3d reviewing 1031 A as an classified risk of begins analysis plain court lan offense, and that harm under section 18-1.3- guage of If the statutе. the statute is clear 401(10)(b) presumptive range the maximum face, unambiguous on its then the court years sentence of twelve had be increased Luther, People need look no further. 58 years it pursuant four before was doubled (Colo.2002). 1013, 1015 P.3d If the statute is provision applicable to the enhancement ambiguous, court looks to the statute’s parolees. applying these legislative history, consequences giv sions, trial court determined the maxi- construction, goal en and the overall mum sentence Valenzuela could receive on statutory proper scheme to determine thirty-two the controlled substance count was interpretation statute. v. Coo years Department in the of Corrections. per, 354 P.3d The trial sentenced Valenzuela to a IV.Analysis thirty-two year conspiracy sentence on the The offense section 18-18- distribute a schedule II controlled substance 405(l)(a), provides, in part: relevant conviction and a concurrent of for- ty-five years on the conviction for It person knowingly first de- is unlawful gree manufacture, kidnapping. appeal dispense, This concerns pos- sess, whether sentencing possess or to with intent to manufac- ture, sell, dispеnse, contained section 18-1.3- or a con- distribute 401(10)(b) substance; applies induce, to Valenzuela’s controlled conviction; degree induce, conspire kid- one or other 18—405(l)(a) granted The issue this court certiorari on was: constitutes an 18— 18-1.3-401(10).” "whether to distribute crime under section substance, wholly an offense contained in section (XI) sell, ing: ... Unlawful manu- dispense,

persons to facturing, dispensing, intent tribute, possess with possess, or with the intent to or distribute controlled substance substance; possess one equipment section 18-18-405. more chemicals defined intent manufacture 18-1.3^01(10)(b)(XI) Section contains substance. much of the same as section 18-18- provision, entitled “Unlawful The offense however, 405(l)(a); the actions enumerated distribution, manufacturing, dispensing, sale provision are offense, within possession,” creates identical categories of separate three which are in can violated. The actions listed the be actions, by the word “or” and offset scribed extraordinary mirror provision risk violate the An individual can semicolons. ways committed which are the offense can be offense, in several and commit category in the contained offense 1) categories: in ways the three specified exception simple pos- provision, with the of manufacture, selling, actual session which the possession with in- possession, or tributing, mention, not and does not sion does address manufacture, dispense, sell or distrib- tent to any of the statute can be violated substance; 2) inducement, a ute controlled categories. in the and third contained second inducement, to attempted extraordinary provision The risk states sell, distribute, manufacture, pos- dispense, distribution, manufacturing, dis- manufacture, sess, possess intent to pensing, possession a controlled sub- dispense, distribute to substancе with the intent 3) stance; of possession manufacture, dispense” a controlled sub- supplies intent man- chemicals or extraordinary stance constitutes an risk a controlled substance. ufacture category crime. The first of the offense categories of the three de- Within each provision proscribes manufacturing, actual separate provision fined distributing, possession, dispensing, selling, an violate ways in individual can that ‍‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌​‍which with intent commit the category, and therefore offense. dispense, a sell distribute controlled sub- example, an For individual can violate specifi- the list оf stance. while specified category in the first statute as cally extraordinary in enumerated actions among things, simple posses- other through, provision risk contains most of the a substance or sion of controlled are contained offense can be committed that with the intent to of a controlled substance provision, category of the offense the first Similarly, can it. be distribute provision does not list specified category as second violated provision offense all by, among things, conspiracy pos- other Specifically, the violated. attempt sess a substancе possession, fails include a possess another controlled sub- induce category in the first which is enumerated Accordingly, category each included stance. offense multiple contains violate the offense contained provides variety proscribed actions and for categories, posses- third second or such can commit which an individual one or more chemicals or sion of the offense. with the intent to manufacture may (contained A enhanced if criminal sentence be catego- the third within category within the crime falls extraor- ry) dinary (con- 18—1.3— sell, risk crimes definеd section or distribute a controlled substance (10)(b),

401. Subsection category). par- Of tained within second provision, provides: case, present importance to the ticular not list con- does present an Crimes society of harm to shall include follow-

592 (1985)(use 479, a controlled substance —the 83 L.Ed.2d 472 sell the term pled identify “or” indicates an separate action to which Valenzuela scribed categories using guilty. meaning); the word’s normal Comm’rs, County Bloomer v. Bd. 799 P.2d that, appeals reasoned be- The court of 942, conspiracy to distribute a controlled cause Abiodun, 111 P.3d substance is enumerated in the extraordi- not (Colo.2005), nary it does nоt this court held that section constitute 18- 18-405(l)(a) single creates a risk crime and Valenzuela’s offense for dou- jeopardy purposes, ble aggravated on that and an sentence could individual could not possessing be convicted for basis. “dis- quantum drugs” crete and also convicted People dispute argue this and distributing quantum that same drugs. phrase “as defined in inclusion In Abiodun this court stated the offense 18-18-405” in the single defines entirety of sion refers to the section 18-18- acts, structured as a series of with refer- 405(l)(a), simple pos- ence to the same controlled substance and session, any of and thus the aсtions listed in governed by a common mens rea. The provision, excepting simple pos- specific acts chosen for inclusion are not session, constitutes mutually themselves overlap exclusive but provi- crime the under ways in various and cover a continuum of People argue sion.3 further The that production conduct from the aof controlled offense does not create three dis- delivery substance to its person, to another categories ways violating tinct or alternate under of a number of circumstances. statute, but rather the structure of merely offense is dictated Id. at 466. concerns, grammatical and the offense Therefore, 18-18^405(l)(a) section creates simply proscribed sion contains a list of ac- single offense under the title “Unlawful relating tions to controlled substances. distribution, manufacturing, dispensing, sale possession,” which can through be violated above, As discussed the structure of commission of one of the “series of acts” the offense makes clear that three organized into categories. three distinct categories distinct of actions are criminalized. categories separated by 18-18-405(l)(a) The three . While section creates a disjunctive semicolon and the single word “or.” jeopardy offense for double purposes, ordinarily Use of the word “or” is nothing “assumed in suggests Abiodun the General to demarcate categories.” different Assembly may Garcia punish not choose to different States, 70, 73, United 469 U.S. committing 105 S.Ct. differently.4 the offense 3. pears suggest The do not sentencing purposes address whether that for it is they way violating pro- believe the the offense immaterial which commits, act a defendant category posses- dicta, vision contained in the third merely this statement was made — sion of one or more chemicals or explanation without and not in the context aof equipment Rather, with the intent to manufacture a con- sentencing. discussion of the statement purview trolled substance—is within the of the simply distinguish single made to offense provision. (l)(a) created subsection from the remainder dealing sentencing of the statute consider- Abiodun, 4. language quoted In we stated that the of commit- ations. The above notwith- ting standing, enumerated in recognized offense 'section 18-T8- in Abiodun this court that it 405(l)(a) entirety constitute legislature's of the offense is "the ‍‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌​‍choice to treat a course of conduct, and the remainder of the statute is or various acts it considers to be related time, entirely appropriate devoted purpose sentence nature or ... as one or as more offense,” proscription violation of the contained in subsec- than one sons, and that “for a host rea- (l)(a). characterizing In including only the remainder of its assessment of the 18-18-405, we appropriateness multiple punishments” stated "the defendant’s required by way legislature the statute may pro- is in no choose to define certain dependent upon particular single act enumerated scribed as a actions crime. Ill P.3d at Therefore, acts he is 462, to have acknowledged pur- found committed.” Ill P.3d we that for language ap- poses punishment, While this courts must look to the dispense of the fact, defined manufacture or five legislature has elsewhere —mirror exempt violating a class four the statute listed as six definition of category provision. from the of the offense ed Accordingly, plain language crimes. based on the sentence, sentencing proper appears Assembly in- determine it General look to the selected judge only must manufacturing, dispensing, sell- tended legislature. ing, or distribution сontrolled substance of controlled substance creates The fact that offense manufacture, dispense, sell or dis- cat- single containing offense three distinct tribute to constitute ways the egories, providing each different aggravated sentencing. crimes committed, particularly is not regard significant with to the offense People argue The inclusion of the because, pro- regardless of which sion itself phrase “as defined section 18-18-405” commits, he have act a defendant will scribed pro- makes clear that the charged may be violated all of vision refers to Howevеr, the cre- section 18-18-405. under violated, provision can be signifi- categories three distinct ation of However, disagree. possession. we read in cant when “as defined in section 18- conjunction with the referring 18-405” could be read as to two vision. First, things. urged by the different The actions listed People, referring it could read as to the actions listed provision refer entirety including offense provision, category the first violating all of the different exception simple possession, the and with Second, it could be read as a sim- statute. encompass the offenses enu- inchoate do distribution, ple cross reference to “unlawful pos- category within the second or merated sale, manufacturing, dispensing, posses- or supplies chemicals with the session of or a controlled the sion of substance with intent manufacture substance intent to sell, distribute, manufacture, dispense,” or by category. Specifi- the prohibited as third specific those defined in sec- as offenses are cally, extraordinary provision the states risk tion 18-18-405. distribution, manufacturing, dis- “unlawful People support argument their sale, possession pensing, or of a controlled in section refers to “as defined 18-18-405” distribute, sell, with the intent to substance ways violating the different the all of dispense, or as defined sec- offense of sim- tion 18-18-405” constitute possession, by arguing ple the category crimes. The of the distribution, man- listed actions provision provides that it is unlawful for sale, ufacturing, dispensing, possession or “manufacture, knowingly dispense, person sell, a controlled substance with the intent sell, in- possess, possess distribute, manufacture, dispense” con- dispense, or distrib- tent extraordinary provision tained in the risk are ute a controlled substance.” the of- While merely a reference the title of section 18- ways in provision lists a totаl of ten fense distribution, manufactur- 18-405—“Unlawful an individual can the which violate ing, dispensing, possession.” sale extraordinary only provision risk refer- ways statute. five of to violate the ences extraordinary applied provision If the risk provision all the The five violate the violated, extraordinary risk actions in the extraor- enumerated and the listed sion merely manufacturing, dinary provision risk were a refer- provision distribution, — title, possession seemingly sale or of a controlled the enumerated pensing, ence sell, distribute, actions would mirror the title of the offense substance with intent to legislature mandating particular legislature when sen- drew between certain distinctions language types and to of conduct selected tences. However, provision. extraordinary risk extraordinary provision included in the risk distribution, provision states “unlawful manu- as a means to cross reference “unlawful dis- tribution, sale, sale, facturing, possession manufacturing, dispensing, dispensing, possession of a controlled substance with the with the intent to substance sell, distribute, manufacture, intent to distribute, manufacture, or dis- de- as pense,” specific as those actions are defined are fined section 18-18-405” classified as reading section 18-18-405. This extraordinary risk crimes. The title of the plain meaning consistent manufacturing, statute lists of the statute. sale, possession. The actions listed in the title are similar to those listed in Here, violating however, extraordinary provision; risk provision extraordinary not listed in the risk extraordinary provision risk actions provision are what could be classified as the specific than those the title. While less severe or violating less harmful extraordinary provision specifically risk the statute. The possession includes sion, terms, applies its to unlawful distri- sell, distribute, bution, with the intent to manufac- manufacturing, dispensing, ture, possession the title does not reference of a controlled substance with the plain action. based on the or dis- pense. It however simple does not include possession, and the title of the offense inchoate offenses of conspiracy, actions enumerated in of chemicals appear do not to reference with the intent the title to manufacture a of section 18-18-405. controlled substance. The actions enumerat- ed in are the Further, People’s argument is under- violating the statute that relate to that, they concede, mined the fact supply thе actual of controlled substances to apply does not parties third or the actual of con- simple possession of a controlled sub- supply substances with the intent to Seemingly, stance. if the parties. those substances to third The ac- apply does not posses- tions enumerated in the sion, is not included provision do not violating include the of within the actions enumerated the extraor- simply the statute that possession relate to dinary provision, argument risk that the use, personal controlled substance for extraordinary provision applies risk to all of conspirаcy manufacture, attempt or dis- violating the statute is flawed. sell, pense, or distribute a controlled sub- extraordinary provi- risk stance, or possession supply of a chemical or any language sion does not contain suggest- necessary Here, for by manufacture. specif- ing an intent simple possession yet to exclude ically including supply the actions related to include the inchoate attempt offenses of and of controlled parties substances to third Rather, conspiracy. extraordinary risk extraordinary provision, risk the General provision treats and con- Assembly сhose to draw distinction be- attempt manner; and the same tween, punish harshly, and actions re- is, it does not mention them. If the sale, lated to manufacture and distribution of Assembly General simple intended to exclude actions, controlled than substances inchoate possession extraordinary from the risk possession of per- controlled substances for it, sion not mentioning argument the same use, sonal possession and neces- attempt made for conspiracy. and sary production of controlled substances. Therefore, People’s argument Therefore, by specifically listing unlаwful extraordinary provision’s language risk distribution, “as manufacturing, sale, dispensing, defined section 18-18-405” references all or of a controlled substance with violating manufacture, the intent to or unpersuasive. A understanding better of dispense, listing any not but of the other the “as defined in” is that it is provision, actions sell, the intent to substance with logical distinc- Assembly drew a the General distribute, de- or involving the actual conduct tion between constitute ex- fined section 18-18-405” substances dissemination Both section 18-18- traordinary risk crimes. involving actu- and conduct parties, third 405(3.5) extraordinary risk and the parties. third al dissemination manufaсturing, dispensing, acts of state the extraordinary finding that the A distributing, possessing and con- selling, distribution, man- just unlawful sion refers sell, the intent to substance with sale, possession of ufacturing, dispensing, tribute, manufacture, dispense constitute sell, intent to Therefore, extraordinary risk crimes. distribute, dispense —the 18-18-405(3.5) covers language of section specif- violating the offense ways of enumerated in precisely the same conduct extraordinary risk ically enumerated explicit- extraordinary and statutory by the compelled also—is attempt offenses of ly excludes the inchoate 18-18-405. of section scheme cоnspiracy and the offense and Among the different fact that section 18-18- possession. The inchoate of- are the can be violated vision 405(3.5) attempt. General- conspiracy fenses violating each state the same statutory sentencing ly, under the Colorado provision constitute conspiracy pun- are attempt and provisions, Assembly that the General risk crimes shows completed degree than the to a lesser ished distribution, manufac- intended unlawful conspira- including attempt and By offense. sale, dispensing, possession of a turing, provision, but for cy within the offense sell, controlled substance with the attempt and distribute, manufacture, dispense con- same punished conspiracy would risk crimes stitute completed actions enumerated degree as the aggravated sentencing. However, through provision. in the offense language of the because the ex- provision and its clear, provision is we need attempt, the com- clusion plain language of further than the look no distribution, man- unlawful pleted offenses of meaning. The to determine its sale, possession of ufacturing, dispensing, provision states “unlawful the intent to a controlled substance with manufacturing, dispensе pun- substance with inchoate of- harshly than the ished more distribute, manufacture, the intent to conspiracy to commit fenses dispense” are classified as Ac- enumerated acts. one of the conspir- was convicted crimes. Valenzuela ultimately imposed cordingly, II controlled acy a schedule to distribute manner in is dictated on a defendant substance, within the definition a crime not provision, and he violated the offense which under section of risk crimes conspir- the inchoate offenses 18-1.3-401(10)(b)(XI). Villanueva’s sentence harshly than the com- acy punished are less aggravated therefore not have been should pleted offense. that on basis. by reading is bolstered This of the statute V. Conclusion 18-18-405(3.5) which language of section felony unlawfully man- offense of states “the Accordingly, we hold that Valen- because selling, distributing, ufacturing, dispensing, conspiracy to distribute a zuela’s sentence for unlawfully manu- possessing with intent to substance, in II violation schedule facture, con- or distribute a 18-18-405(l)(a) ag- improperly of section an substance is 18-1.3-401(10)(b)(XI), gravated under section pre- the modified that is to crime ap- judgment of the court we affirm specified in sec- sentencing range sumptive peals. 18-1.3^101(10).” dissеnts, EID distribution, and Justice manu- COATS Justice provision states sale, joins in the dissent. possession of a facturing, COATS, use, dissenting. personal express- which is Justice ly distinguished from the continuum all majority holding today will Although the by other conduct its classification length effect on defen- have no felony, aas less serious “the defendant’s incarceration, and it in no dant’s sentence required by way inis no way legislature categoriz- prohibits the from dependent upon particular act or acts he drug included in ing the inchoate acts is found to have committed.” Id. at I risk crimes add- offense as language do not believe the same (in extraneous) words, ing my opinion, a few single construed as “the creation of crime” compelled major- I take issue with the feel advantage when that works distinct, ity opinion, for two primarily but sepa- defendant but as the creation of “three related, object majority’s I to the reasons. categories” rate of offenses when that concept “plain meaning” reliance on the duces the more advantageous result for him. with reference to its construction of this stat- (3.5) Subsection of which is ute, object I construction of a and also designated “Unlawful manufac- ascribing to it different and statute irrecon- turing, dispensing, possession,” clas- meanings depending upon cilable its effect in sifies as an risk crime “[t]he given respectfully I context. therefore unlawfully manufacturing, offense of sent. dispensing, selling, distributing, possess- ing unlawfully intent myself among I count While the first to or distribute a controlled sub- meaning limit according statute added). (emphasis stance.” This subsection language actually legisla- chosen specifies, recognized Abiodun, as we that intent, express ture to I its nevertheless litany proscribed conduct, including recognize statutory particular preparatory statutorily acts left undiffer- reasonably can sometimes be understood in ones, completed entiated from creates a sin- way. more than one I it misleading consider offense, gle punishable by penalty ranges does, suggest, majority as I believe the prescribed for extraordinary risk crimes. It legislature chosen way purports classify no this offense as proscribe punish range of conduct risk crime when com- 18-18-405(l)(a), suscep- included in section is designated ways, mitted but interpretation tible of but reasonable description differs its from the title of the “plain meaning.” therefore has a Where only by expressly excluding from аrray court must interpreta- resort “possession” the already conduct distin- justifications tive aids and found in the ma- guished aas different and lesser jority’s explanation, to conclude that body proscription. meaning “plain,” my of a statute is at least in Because we have view, construed the continuum at responsibility best minimizes the conduct, gravamen “the of which pre- assigning the court in meaning to that venting delivery the unauthorized illegal of’ worst, statute at policy obscures choices else, drugs single, to someone as a undiffer- actually imposed by made and the court. entiated offense and punish- the statute itself statutory language Even where suscepti- “felony es that offense” as an ble of more than -one reasonable understand- crime, I prior holdings believe our however, ing, I meaning do not believe its majority’s irreconcilable with the current vary can in different classes of cases. Not construction. years ago, part five because of its more I respectfully therefore dissent. defendants, lenient effect on criminal very proscriptive construed this statute I am authorized to state that EID Justice creating single, undifferentiated offense joins in this dissent. separate rather than categories “three Maj. 591; op. actions.” at see Abiodun, People v. P.3d

We there held that with

Case Details

Case Name: People v. Valenzuela

Court Name: Supreme Court of Colorado

Date Published: Sep 14, 2009

Citation: 216 P.3d 588

Docket Number: 08SC418

Court Abbreviation: Colo.