Court Opinion

ID: 9795741
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:37:19.12234+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:35:59.938644
License: Public Domain

Justice COATS,
specially concurring:
I too believe that the director is estopped from challenging by appeal to a higher court a judgment to which he expressly agreed. I am, however, reluctant to characterize the concession in this case as "invited error" for fear of confounding it with an intentional choice made for tactical reasons at trial. I write separately to make clear that I do not believe (and do not understand the majority opinion to imply) that a eustodian is without any means of seeking correction of an erroneous discharge order in which he has acquiesced. Rule 60 of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure is designed to strike the appropriate balance between considerations of finality and justice in an individual case, and I see no reason why that rule is either inapplicable or insufficiently flexible to provide relief from erroneous orders granting relief in the habeas corpus context.
As the pro se petitioner's appellate counsel made clear, the petitioner did not provide the district court with the amended Judgment, Sentence, and Mittimus, in which the sentencing court directed that he serve two years in the custody of the Department of Corrections plus any period of mandatory parole - authorized by - section - 18-1-105(1)(a)(V)(A). In fact, the petitioner represented to the court that his sentence included no more than two years of incarceration, which he claimed to have already served. Counsel for the custodian was apparently unaware of and therefore failed to bring to the court's attention the controlling mittimus. Relying on the not-yet-final court of appeals' opinion in People v. Johnson, 987 P.2d 928 (Colo.App.1999), counsel for the custodian agreed, however, that any sentence that included an additional period of mandatory parole for someone in the defendant's cireamstances would be illegal. As we subsequently made clear in People v. Johnson, 13 P.3d 309, 313 (Colo.2001)(reversing court of appeals), such a period of mandatory parole was in fact required by statute. In effect, the custodian not only agreed that the petitioner could not legally be made to serve the period of parole specified in section 18-1-105(1)(a)(V)(A), and that the district court had jurisdiction to grant the relief requested by the petitioner, but also that the court should grant the relief requested and discharge the petitioner from the custody of the department.
It is a basic principle of appellate procedure that unless the trial court has been given an opportunity to correct an alleged error, it will not be considered on review for anything other than plain error. People v. Gallegos, 764 P.2d 76, 77 (Colo.1988) (deelin-ing to consider merits of People's appeal challenging legality of sentence in absence of contemporaneous objection or request of trial court pursuant to Crim. P. 85(a) to correct the error); Deason v. Lewis, 706 P.2d 1283, 1286 (Colo.App.1985) (relying on Bigler v. Bigler, 82 Colo. 463, 260 P. 1081 (1927), for proposition that a party has no right to appeal from an order or judgment to which his consent was regularly obtained); see also Hansen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 957 P.2d 1380, 1384 (Colo.1998) ("It has long been this court's practice not to review errors alleged by a party who is responsible for the claimed error."). Whether or not this policy allows an exception for rulings beyond the subject-matter jurisdiction of courts of *621general jurisdiction, of Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 106 S.Ct. 1326, 89 L.Ed.2d 501 (1986) (imposing a duty on federal appellate courts to satisfy themselves of the jurisdiction of lower federal courts, in part because they are courts of limited jurisdiction), the custodian should still be estopped from challenging the discharge order at issue here. As a court of general jurisdiction within the state, the district court was clearly a court to which the legislature has given authority to entertain the prisoner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and its issuance of the writ and order of discharge were relief specifically authorized by the legislature for this class of cases. See §§ 13-45-101 to -108, 5 C.R.S. (2001).
While the grounds upon which habeas relief would be proper are narrowly cireum-scribed by the statute, §§ 13-45-102, -108, a court's reasons for granting relief authorized for this kind of action cannot deprive it of subject-matter jurisdiction to rule. In any event, however, a determination that a sentence to mandatory parole would exceed the jurisdiction of the sentencing court, and therefore be void, falls squarely within the statutorily authorized grounds for granting habeas relief, even if that determination is erroncous. See § 18-45-102(2)(a); Stilley v. Tinsley, 153 Colo. 66, 385 P.2d 677 (1963) (sentence not within statutory limitations is not merely erroneous but void); see also In re Birdwell, 50 Cal.App.4th 926, 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 244, 246 (1996) (imposition of unauthorized sentence is act in excess of court's jurisdiction). ror in a particular case for a district court to do so, granting a writ of habeas corpus and discharging a prisoner is not beyond the jurisdiction of the court merely because other Similarly, while it may be er-remedies that could accomplish the prisoner's release remain available in other courts.1
The policy considerations supporting the various doctrines limiting a party from changing its position on appeal are too obvious and well-accepted to require discussion. Even though habeas corpus is a unique legal remedy, implicating not only individual but also important public interests, and even though custodians should be encouraged to ensure that individuals are not held in custody longer than is authorized by law, the interests of regularity and finality of judicial process would be ill-served by simply permitting the custodian to abandon his judicial commitments at will or seek reversal in higher courts of the very judgments in which he joined below. It is also well-settled, however, that there are ctreumstances, related to the fault of the parties and the greater interests of justice and equity, in which concerns for finality must give way.
Rule 60 of the civil rules provides for relief from final judgments in such limited cireum-stances. Although habeas corpus is a kind of special statutory proceeding, we have made clear that it is civil in nature, having as its focus the entitlement to discharge from custody rather than the legality of a conviction or sentence. Graham v. Gunter, 855 P.2d 1384, 1385 (Colo.1993). The proper party to defend against a claim for habeas relief is therefore the custodian of the petitioner rather than the People of the state. Duran v. Price, 868 P.2d 375, 378 (Colo.1994). The procedural requirements of the habeas corpus statute clearly take precedence over the civil rules, see C.R.C.P. 1(a), 81(a) (rules apply to special statutory proceedings except where inconsistent or in conflict), but the statute in no way prescribes or limits post-*622judgment remedies. Cf. Burton v. Johnson, 975 F.2d 690 (10th Cir.1992) (arriving at same conclusion with respect to the applicability of Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) in the context of federal habeas corpus proceedings). The rule permits relief not only for clerical errors but also for mistakes, misrepresentations by the opposing party, developments making the judgment no longer equitable, or any other reason justifying relief, While we have held that a change in decisional law is not in itself a sufficient ground for relief pursuant to C.R.C.P. 60(b)(5), Davidson v. McClellan, 16 P.3d 233 (Colo.2001), reliance on appellate opinions that were reversed before ever becoming final or that have since been overruled may, under some cireumstances, amount to sufficient justification. State Farm Auto. Ins. Co. v. McMillan, 925 P.2d 785, 791 (Colo.1996). Given the unique public interest in having convicted felons serve the sentences mandated by the General Assembly, C.R.C.P. 60(b)(5) has particular applicability to erroneous discharge orders.
It is also well-settled that a sentence that is not even within the range authorized by the legislature can be corrected at any time, whether or not it was acquiesced in by the parties. See Crim. P. 85(a); Gallegos, 764 P.2d at 77. Specifically, a sentence that does not include a special period of parole mandated by statute is illegal, even if it was imposed pursuant to a plea agreement. Craig v. People, 986 P.2d 951, 964 (Colo.1999). While an improperly induced plea may be withdrawn, an illegal sentence fashioned by the parties is not subject to specific performance. Id. at 959. Insulating from all reconsideration and review an order discharging a convicted felon who does not even allege service of the minimum sentence statutorily required for his crime, based solely on the invitation of the parties to misconstrue the applicable law, would be tantamount in its effect to condoning an illegal sentence. Had the custodian simply released the defendant before completing his sentence as the result of mistake, either of fact or law, the prisoner's return to custody would not be barred but would depend upon the equities of the case. See Brown v. Brittain, 773 P.2d 570 (Colo.1989). I believe the considerations relevant to the correction of an erroneous release by the custodian are not unlike those justifying relief from an erroncous order of discharge.
I therefore specially concur.

. - Unlike the majority, I understand the custodian to be asserting that the petitioner's claim had to be raised, if at all, in the sentencing court pursuant to Crim. P. 35 rather than asserting that a failure to exhaust alternate remedies is jurisdictional. Similarly, I consider the federal exhaustion doctrine limiting petitions by state prisoners pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to be based on considerations of federalism with little, if any, applicability here. Nevertheless, I agree that the failure of the petitioner to first pursue other available avenues of relief does not deprive a district court of jurisdiction to entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus and to order the petitioner's immediate release, even though it might be error to do so in the face of a timely objection. Cf Duran v. Price, 868 P.2d 375 (Colo.1994) (habeas court should have treated petition, claiming entitlement to release because sentence had been served before parole was revoked, as Crim. P. 35(c) motion and transferred venue to sentencing court).