Court Opinion

ID: 9863567
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 05:46:06.613012+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:49:31.021843
License: Public Domain

Judge TAUBMAN
dissenting.
Because I conclude that we have jurisdiction to hear this appeal, I respectfully dissent.
To determine whether we have jurisdiction here, we must interpret two principal statutes: § 13-4-102(1), C.R.S.2003, which concerns the jurisdiction of the court of appeals, and § 13-6-310(2), C.R.S.2003, which concerns appeals from county court.
*218Section 13-4-102(1) provides that, with certain exceptions, the court of appeals has jurisdiction over appeals "from final judgments of the district courts." One such exception is "[eclases appealed from the county court to the district court, as provided in section 13-6-310." Section 13-4-102(1)(f), C.R.S.2003. Section 13-6-310 generally provides that appeals from final judgments of county courts shall be taken to the district court and that such appeals shall be based upon the record made in the county court. Section 13-6-310(2) then provides:
The district court shall review the case on the record on appeal and affirm, reverse, remand, or modify the judgment; except that the district court, in its discretion, may remand the case for a new trial with such instructions as it may deem nee-essary, or it may direct that the case be tried de novo before the district court.
Relying on the language in § 13-4-102(1) that the court of appeals does not have jurisdiction in cases appealed from the county court to the district court, the majority concludes that we therefore do not have jurisdiction here. In my view, however, the majority overlooks the phrase in that statute, "as provided in § 13-6-310." That phrase limits the exception so that not every case appealed from county court to district court is precluded from appellate review by the court of appeals.
Section 18-6-810 provides three alternatives to a district court when a case is appealed from a county court, only one of which is truly an appeal, that is, when the district court reviews the county court's proceedings on the record and determines to affirm, reverse, remand, or modify the judgment. Section 18-16-8310 also provides that the district court, in its discretion, may remand the case for a new trial or conduct a new trial itself in the district court.
Commenting on the statutory predecessor to § 13-6-310, the supreme court stated, "The statute provides a procedure whereby the district court can act as a trial court rather than as a court of review, if it adopts the third alternative." People v. Williams, 172 Colo. 434, 438, 473 P.2d 982, 984 (1970). The supreme court also stated that a trial de novo in a court of general jurisdiction, in the absence of statutory language restricting its scope, means a trial in the commonly accepted sense of that term. Thus, it seems clear that a trial de novo under § 13-6-310 is not an appeal. See Black's Law Dictionary 94 (7th ed.1999)(appeal is defined as "a proceeding undertaken to have a decision reconsidered by bringing it to a higher authority; esp[ecially], the submission of a lower court's or agency's decision to a higher court for review and possible reversal"). See generalty Water, Waste & Land, Inc. v. Lanham, 955 P.2d 997 (Colo.1998)(when the district court exercises its authority to decide the case based on the record developed below, as opposed to a trial de novo, it acts as a reviewing court and must accept the facts as found by the county court, and its review is limited to the sufficiency of the evidence); People v. Anderson, 177 Colo. 84, 492 P.2d 844 (1972).
Thus, in my view, when $ 13-4-102(1) excludes from the jurisdiction of the court of appeals cases appealed from the county court to the district court as provided in § 13-6-310, the exclusion applies only to those cases in which the district court acts as a court of review or an appellate court. To interpret the statute otherwise would torture the meaning of "appeal" to include a trial de novo.
My conclusion is further supported by reference to Crim. P. 37(h) and § 16-12-101, C.R.S.2003.
Crim. P. 37(b) provides in pertinent part:
Unless there is further review by the Supreme Court upon writ of certiorari pursuant to the rules of such court, after final disposition of the appeal the judgment on appeal entered by the district court shall be certified to the county court for action as directed by the district court, except in cases tried de novo by the district court . and in such cases, the judgment on appeal shall be that of the district court and so enforceable.
In my view, this means that when a case is appealed from county court to district court, and there is a trial de novo in the district court, "the judgment on appeal shall be that *219of the district court and so enforceable." It follows that if, after a trial de novo, the judgment is that of the district court, that judgment should be appealable under the same procedure for appeals from other district court judgments. Further, § 16-12-101 provides that every person convicted of a erime under Colorado law has the right of appeal to "review the proceedings resulting in conviction" {emphasis added). When a district court conducts a trial de novo, however, it does not "review the proceedings resulting in conviction." See People v. Hampton, $76 P.2d 12836, 1241 (Colo.1994)("a convicted defendant has the right to appeal his conviction" under § 16-12-101); People v. Davis, 759 P.2d 742, 746 (Colo.App.1988)("[als a matter of right, every person convicted of a crime is entitled to one appeal"). Here, under the majority's decision, defendant's conviction will not be reviewed on the merits by the court of appeals, as contemplated by § 16-12-101, and his chances for review on the merits are limited if he files a petition for certiorari with the supreme court.
Accordingly, I1 would conclude that this court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to $ 18-4-102(1) to consider defendant's appeal because it is from a final judgment of the district court entered after a trial de novo in that court. Further, I would address defendant's appeal on the merits.