Opinion ID: 2823798
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Prosecution May Appeal the Legal Correctness of a Sentencing Range

Text: Â¶28Â Â Â Â Â Â Â We now turn to Hunsakerâs argument that the prosecution may not appeal the âproprietyâ of the sentence the post-conviction court imposed on count II. His argument hinges on a false premise. The prosecution does not challenge the sentenceâs propriety in the sense of questioning the courtâs exercise of discretion; the prosecutionÂ challenges the legal correctness of the sentencing range from which the court derived count IIâs sentence. Therefore, the prosecutorial appeal here is proper. Â¶29Â Â Â Â Â Â Â âThe prosecution may appeal any decision of a court in a criminal case upon any question of law.â Â§ 16-12-102(1). We have consistently held that appeals made under this section are limited to purely legal questions. See, e.g., People v. Martinez, 22 P.3d 915, 919â21 (Colo. 2001) (dismissing the prosecutionâs appeal where the resolution of the issues âturned on decisions of factâ rather than on a question of law); People v. Tharp, 746 P.2d 1337, 1339 (Colo. 1987) (dismissing the prosecutionâs appeal that âmerely raise[d] factual and evidentiary questions well within the discretion of the [trial] courtâ). Here, the prosecution argued on appeal that the post-conviction court miscalculated the sentencing range for count IIâan issue that turns on the proper interpretation of the applicable sentencing statutes and case law.Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Statutory interpretation is categorically a question of law. Garcia, 113 P.3d at 780. Accordingly, the prosecution could appeal the legal correctness of the sentencing range used by the post-conviction court.