Court Opinion

ID: 9783559
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 19:49:13.430563+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:35:25.527079
License: Public Domain

Justice COATS,
dissenting.
Today, without saying so, the majority overturns fifteen years of Colorado sentencing law, by removing the cornerstone of this court’s rationale in People v. Flenniken.3 Although a misdemeanor sentence to probation was not at issue in Flenniken, the majority’s “plain meaning” construction of the introductory language of section 16-11-101, is precisely the construction of the identical provision that was rejected in that case, freeing probation in felony cases from any limitation to “the allowable term of confinement under the applicable statute.” See § 16-11-101(1), 6 C.R.S. (1999). In taking this action, the majority, in my view, not only misconstrues the statute but undercuts the validity of the statutory interpretation under which we have operated for more than a decade.
The majority’s holding rests squarely on its interpretation of the introductory language of section 16-11-101(1), which delineates the various sentencing alternatives available to sentencing courts. The critical language is: “Within the limitations of the penalties provided by the classification of the offense of which a person is found guilty, and subject to the provisions of this title, the trial court has the following alternatives in entering judgment imposing a sentence.... ” Equating “penalties” with “imprisonment,” the majority concludes that the plain meaning of this provision limits even the permissible term of probation to the maximum incarceration period authorized for the same offense. Maj. op. at 317.
Contrary to the majority’s characterization of the statute as providing “that the trial court may grant the defendant probation only ‘[wjithin the limitations of the penalties provided ..maj. op. at 317, the statute actually says that within such limitations, “the trial court has the following alternatives,” which include, among others, sentences to probation and sentences to incarceration. As we recognized in Flenniken, in 1972 the General Assembly uncoupled probation from incarceration and made it a separate sentencing alternative, “deliberately choos[ing] not to impose an express limitation on the permissible length of probation.” Flenniken, 749 P.2d at 399 n. 2. Unlike “[a] sentence to imprisonment [which] is governed by Article 16, Part 3 of Title 16 of the statutes, and is expressly subject to the limitations on length of imprisonment set out in section 18-1-105,” we held that “[a] sentence *320to probation ... is governed only by Article 11, Part 2 of Title 16,” stating that “‘the court may grant the defendant probation for such period and upon such terms and conditions as it deems best.’ ” Id. at 399.
In Flenniken we concluded, in direct opposition to today’s holding, that “[n]either that section [§ 16-11-202] nor section 16 — 11— 101(l)(a) (listing probation as an alternative sentence) expressly refers to section 18-1-105 as limiting the period of probation that may be ordered.” Id. Acknowledging that the general introductory language of section 16-11-103 “might be read as imposing the limitations of section 18-1-105 on probationary terms,” we declined to adopt that interpretation. Id.
Because the General Assembly has swiftly responded to the court of appeals construction adopted by the majority today, by clarifying and amending the probationary power of the courts, today’s holding is likely to have little practical effect beyond a limited number of existing misdemeanor cases. The new amendment makes clear that probation is not limited to “the maximum period of incarceration authorized for the classification of the offense of which the defendant is convicted,” but that probation for misdemeanor and petty offenses will now be limited to a maximum possible term of five years. See § 18 — 1.3— 202, 6 C.R.S. (2003). Therefore I find the majority’s actual holding less significant than its resort to a bald assertion that the plain and unambiguous meaning of this statutory language is precisely the meaning we have rejected for fifteen years.
Because I am reluctant to overturn such well-established and well-reasoned case law without good reason, and because I also believe the Flenniken court actually got the better of the argument, I respectfully dissent.
I am authorized to state that Justice KOURLIS joins in this dissent.

. 749 P.2d 395 (Colo.1988).