Court Opinion

ID: 9821119
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 07:49:36.517698+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:22:13.572957
License: Public Domain

ORDER: PETITION FOR REHEARING DENIED
In their petition for rehearing, the Department of Corrections (DOC) argues that on the same day that we issued our original opinion, the supreme court issued an order affirming the denial of another inmate’s ha-beas corpus petition that also concerned whether the governing sentence method should be applied to the calculation of an inmate’s parole eligibility date when the inmate had received concurrent sentences. The DOC also relies on another such order *750from the supreme court. Beeause these additional cases were not discussed in the original briefs, we issue this addendum. The two supreme court opinions on which the DOC relies are one-sentence orders of the supreme court summarily affirming the district court. An appellate court may affirm for any reason supported by the record, even reasons not decided by the district courts, Roque v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2012 COA 10, ¶ 7, 318 B.3d 1, 3, and in each of the two supreme court cases cited by the DOC, it raised two reasons why it could deny the habeas .corpus petition. In People v. Watson, (Colo. No. 15SA139, Jan. 14, 2016) (unpublished order), the DOC raised two arguments: (1) Watson’s petition had become moot because Watson became eligible for parole under DOC’s calculation of parole during the appeal and (2) in the alternative, DOC properly calculated Watson’s parole eligibility date using the governing 'sentence method, In Anderson v. Raemisch, (Colo. No. 2015SA32, Sept. 24, 2015) (unpublished order), the DOC raised two arguments: (1) the district court' properly dismissed Anderson’s petition for habeas corpus because the rule in Nowak v. Suthers, 2014 CO 14, 320 P.3d 340, does not apply to concurrent sentences and (2) Anderson failed to attach a mittimus to his petition and therefore the district court properly dismissed the petition pursuant to Evans v. District Court, 194 Colo. 299, 572 P.2d 811 (1977). Therefore, the supreme court could have affirmed for either of the two reasons in both cases and we may not speculate which reason or reasons the supreme court found to be persuasive.
Therefore, because the DOC does not cite any new authority relevant to our case, the petition for rehearing is denied.