The summaries of the Colorado Court of Appeals published opinions constitute no part of the opinion of the division but have been prepared by the division for the convenience of the reader. The summaries may not be cited or relied upon as they are not the official language of the division. Any discrepancy between the language in the summary and in the opinion should be resolved in favor of the language in the opinion.
SUMMARY October 6, 2022
2022COA115
No. 19CA1007, People v. Dennel — Children’s Code — Juvenile Court — Delinquency — Transfers
In this appeal, a division of the court of appeals interprets a
provision of the juvenile transfer statute contained in the Children’s
Code.
The defendant was charged in juvenile court with committing
a delinquent act that if committed by an adult would constitute a
class 2 felony. On the date of the alleged offense, the defendant
was fifteen years old and had no prior felony adjudications or
convictions. On the People’s motion and after a contested hearing,
the juvenile court waived its jurisdiction and transferred the
defendant’s case to district court for adult criminal proceedings.
Once the case was transferred to district court, the defendant
pleaded guilty to a class 4 felony and was sentenced as an adult. On appeal, the defendant contends that he wasn’t statutorily
eligible to have his case transferred from juvenile court to district
court because he didn’t have a prior felony adjudication. Relying on
People v. Nelson, 2015 COA 123, ¶ 12, the defendant contends that,
under section 19-2.5-802(1)(a)(I)(B), C.R.S. 2022, a child his age
charged with a felony must have a previous delinquency
adjudication for a felony before the juvenile court can transfer his
case to district court. He argues that because he didn’t have a prior
felony adjudication, the juvenile court erred by transferring his case
and the district court never acquired jurisdiction over him under
the transfer statute.
Parting ways with the division in Nelson, this division of the
court of appeals concludes that the plain meaning of the transfer
statute doesn’t condition transfer eligibility on a previous
delinquency adjudication. Because the defendant was eligible for
transfer and he doesn’t otherwise challenge his transfer from
juvenile court to district court, the division affirms the defendant’s
conviction and sentence. COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2022COA115
Court of Appeals No. 19CA1007 Pueblo County District Court Nos. 17JD220 & 18CR2025 Honorable Deborah R. Eyler, Judge
The People of the State of Colorado,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Johnny Joseph Dennel, Jr.,
Defendant-Appellant.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED
Division III Opinion by JUDGE WELLING J. Jones and Schutz, JJ., concur
Announced October 6, 2022
Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, Marixa Frias, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Megan A. Ring, Colorado State Public Defender, Mark Evans, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant ¶1 Defendant, Johnny Joseph Dennel, Jr., a juvenile, appeals the
judgment of conviction entered by the district court after he pleaded
guilty to manslaughter.
¶2 Dennel was charged in juvenile court with committing a
delinquent act that if committed by an adult would constitute
second degree murder, a class 2 felony. On the date of the alleged
offense, Dennel was fifteen years old and had no prior felony
adjudications or convictions. On the People’s motion and after a
contested hearing, the juvenile court waived its jurisdiction and
transferred Dennel’s case to district court for adult criminal
proceedings. Once the case was transferred to district court,
Dennel pleaded guilty to manslaughter, a class 4 felony, and was
sentenced as an adult.
¶3 On appeal, Dennel contends that he wasn’t statutorily eligible
to have his case transferred from juvenile court to district court
because he didn’t have a prior felony adjudication. Relying on
People v. Nelson, 2015 COA 123, ¶ 12, Dennel contends that, under
section 19-2.5-802(1)(a)(I)(B), C.R.S. 2022, a child his age charged
with a felony must have a previous delinquency adjudication for a
felony before the juvenile court can transfer his case to district
1 court. He argues that because he didn’t have a prior felony
adjudication, the juvenile court erred by transferring his case and
the district court never acquired jurisdiction over him under the
transfer statute.
¶4 Parting ways with the division in Nelson, we conclude that the
plain meaning of the transfer statute doesn’t condition transfer
eligibility on a previous delinquency adjudication. Because Dennel
was eligible for transfer and he doesn’t otherwise challenge his
transfer from juvenile court to district court, we affirm the
judgment.
I. Background
¶5 This case began when the People filed a petition in juvenile
court alleging that Dennel had committed a delinquent act that
constituted second degree murder, a class 2 felony, and that, at the
time of the alleged delinquent act, Dennel was fifteen years old. It’s
undisputed that when this case was filed, Dennel had no prior
felony adjudications or convictions.
¶6 Seeking to charge Dennel as an adult, the People filed a
motion requesting that the juvenile court waive its jurisdiction and
transfer the case to district court pursuant to section 19-2.5-
2 802(1)(a)(I)(B). After a four-day transfer hearing, the juvenile court
found probable cause that Dennel had committed the alleged
delinquent act and that it was in the best interests of the
community for the juvenile court to waive jurisdiction over Dennel.
Thus, over Dennel’s objection, the juvenile court transferred the
case to district court.
¶7 Rather than standing trial on the second degree murder
charge, Dennel agreed to plead guilty to manslaughter, a class 4
felony. The district court accepted Dennel’s guilty plea and
sentenced him to a suspended ten-year term in the custody of the
Department of Corrections on the condition that he complete a five-
year term in the Youthful Offender System.
II. Dennel’s Transfer Eligibility Under Section 19-2.5- 802(1)(a)(I)(B)
¶8 On appeal, Dennel contends that, under the transfer statute, a
juvenile court can’t transfer a case against a fifteen-year-old unless
the child has at least one prior felony adjudication or conviction.
Because he hadn’t previously been adjudicated or convicted of a
felony, Dennel asserts that the district court didn’t acquire
3 jurisdiction to accept his plea, enter a felony conviction against
him, and impose sentence. We disagree.
¶9 We conclude that the transfer statute doesn’t require that a
juvenile have a prior felony adjudication before the court may
transfer the juvenile’s case to district court and, based on this
interpretation, Dennel was eligible to have his case transferred to
district court.
A. Standard of Review
¶ 10 This case presents an issue of statutory interpretation, which
we review de novo. Bostelman v. People, 162 P.3d 686, 689 (Colo.
2007). Our primary task when construing a statute is to give effect
to the General Assembly’s intent. Id. (citing Klinger v. Adams Cnty.
Sch. Dist. No. 50, 130 P.3d 1027, 1031 (Colo. 2006)). In
determining the legislature’s intent, we look first to the plain
language of the statute. Id. at 690 (citing C.S. v. People in Interest of
I.S., 83 P.3d 627, 634 (Colo. 2004)). When reviewing a statute’s
plain language, we read words and phrases in context and construe
them according to their common usage, id. (citing Klinger, 130 P.3d
at 1031), and in a manner that is harmonious with other
provisions, People v. Ross, 2021 CO 9, ¶ 34 (“[W]e are duty-bound
4 to interpret . . . statutory provisions harmoniously — that is, in a
manner that gives consistent and sensible effect to all their parts
and avoids rendering any words or phrases meaningless.”).
¶ 11 If the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, we won’t
engage in further statutory analysis. Bostelman, 162 P.3d at 689.
Indeed, it is only when a statute is ambiguous that we may employ
other tools of statutory construction, such as considering the
consequences of a given construction, the end to be achieved by the
statute, and legislative history. Id.
B. Statutory Interpretation
¶ 12 The Children’s Code creates “a system of juvenile justice that
will appropriately sanction juveniles who violate the law.” § 19-2.5-
101(1)(a), C.R.S. 2022. Subject to certain exceptions, the juvenile
court has “exclusive original jurisdiction” over cases involving
juveniles. § 19-2.5-103(1), C.R.S. 2022.
¶ 13 The transfer statute is one such exception. The transfer
statute permits the People to request that a juvenile court waive its
jurisdiction and transfer a case to district court when — and only
when — a petition contains certain allegations. Specifically, the
transfer statute provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
5 (1)(a) The juvenile court may enter an order certifying a juvenile to be held for criminal proceedings in the district court if:
(I) A petition filed in juvenile court alleges the juvenile is:
(A) Twelve or thirteen years of age at the time of the commission of the alleged offense and is a juvenile delinquent by virtue of having committed a delinquent act that constitutes a class 1 or class 2 felony or a crime of violence, as defined in section 18-1.3-406; or
(B) Fourteen years of age or older at the time of the commission of the alleged offense and is a juvenile delinquent by virtue of having committed a delinquent act that constitutes a felony; and
(II) After investigation and a hearing, the juvenile court finds it would be contrary to the best interests of the juvenile or of the public to retain jurisdiction.
§ 19-2.5-802(1)(a)(I)-(II) (emphasis added).
¶ 14 The parties disagree about the proper interpretation of
subsection (1)(a)(I)(B). Dennel argues that a juvenile fourteen years
of age or older accused of committing a felony is only eligible to
have his case transferred to district court if he has also previously
been adjudicated delinquent for an act that constitutes a felony.
See Nelson, ¶ 12. In contrast, the People argue that nothing in the
statute requires a prior juvenile delinquency adjudication.
6 ¶ 15 We agree with the People. Our conclusion rests on the plain
language of the statute, which is where we turn first.
1. Plain Language
¶ 16 The statute spells out what must be “alleged” in a delinquency
petition for a case to be eligible for transfer to district court.
Specifically, the statute requires the delinquency petition to allege
that the juvenile is at least a certain age and that the juvenile is
accused of committing an offense of at least a certain seriousness.
For a child aged twelve or thirteen to be eligible for transfer, the
petition must allege that the juvenile committed a delinquent act
that constitutes a class 1 or 2 felony or a crime of violence, § 19-
2.5-802(1)(a)(I)(A); for a juvenile fourteen years or older to be eligible
for transfer, the petition must allege that the juvenile committed a
delinquent act that constitutes a felony, § 19-2.5-802(1)(a)(I)(B).
¶ 17 Dennel contends, however, that while the age requirements in
the statute refer to the juvenile’s age at the time of the charged
offense, the references to the level of offense contained in
subsections (1)(a)(I)(A) and (1)(a)(I)(B) describe what the petition
must allege with respect to the juvenile’s adjudicatory history. In
other words, Dennel contends that for a child of twelve or thirteen
7 to have his case transferred to district court, he must have been
previously adjudicated for a delinquent act that constitutes a class
1 or 2 felony or a crime of violence; and for a juvenile fourteen years
old or older, he must have been previously adjudicated for a
delinquent act that constitutes a felony.
¶ 18 We reject Dennel’s urged interpretation because it doesn’t
comport with the plain language of the statute. We begin our plain
language analysis by highlighting the significance of the word
“alleges” in the transfer statute — particularly the first use of this
word (in subsection (1)(a)(I)) and its impact on subsequent
language. See § 19-2.5-802(1)(a)(I) (“A petition filed in juvenile court
alleges the juvenile is . . . .”) (emphasis added).
¶ 19 Sub-subparagraphs (A) and (B) are part of, and follow the
initial language of, subsection (1)(a)(I). Therefore, they simply
describe the requisite — as yet, unproven — allegations that the
People must include in the petition to demonstrate transfer
eligibility. See Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 55
(2002) (defining “allege” as “to assert, affirm, state without proof or
before proving”) (emphasis added). Both sub-subparagraphs
contain two elements linked by the conjunction “and”; they specify
8 (1) the juvenile’s age at the time of the offense, and (2) the offense
classification. See § 19-2.5-802(1)(a)(I)(A), (B).
¶ 20 Thus, reading sub-subparagraph (B) in conjunction with the
prefatory language in subsection (1)(a)(I), the People must allege
that the juvenile (1) is fourteen years of age or older at the time of
the offense, and (2) has committed a delinquent act that constitutes
a felony. As for the first required allegation, it’s undisputed that the
statute refers to the juvenile’s age at the time of the offense alleged
in the petition. Mindful of the unproven quality of an allegation —
and the fact that the word “alleges” applies equally to both elements
of sub-subparagraph (B) — we conclude that the second element
also refers to the present alleged offense rather than a prior felony
adjudication.
¶ 21 Reading this sub-subparagraph in context confirms our
conclusion. Under section 19-2.5-802(1)(a)(I)(A), (B), the petition
must simply “allege” that the juvenile is a “juvenile delinquent by
virtue of having committed a delinquent act.” That is, a juvenile’s
delinquency status is tied only to an unproven assertion of
delinquent conduct, not a juvenile’s already proven adjudicatory
history.
9 ¶ 22 Moreover, the statute’s focus on the allegations in the
“petition” (as opposed to the motion to transfer) further underscores
that the statute’s reference to the allegations of delinquent conduct
is to the conduct giving rise to the filing of the petition, not the
juvenile’s adjudicatory history. Indeed, the purpose of the petition
is to put the juvenile on notice of the facts surrounding the alleged
offense that brings him within the juvenile court’s jurisdiction. See
§ 19-2.5-502(3), (4), C.R.S. 2022 (setting forth the form and content
of a delinquency petition). The motion to transfer, not the petition,
is the logical place to include collateral information such as
adjudicatory history.
¶ 23 Our interpretation is further bolstered by the way that the
legislature differentiates between allegations of delinquency and
proven prior delinquency elsewhere in the transfer statute. For
example, when listing the factors a juvenile court must consider
when deciding whether to transfer a case, the legislature
conspicuously differentiates between the present “alleged offense”
and crimes for which the juvenile was “previously adjudicated.”
Compare § 19-2.5-802(4)(b)(II), (III) (listing factors concerning the
“alleged offense”), with § 19-2.5-802(4)(b)(IX), (X), (XIII) (listing
10 factors that focus on whether the juvenile was “previously
adjudicated” for certain delinquent acts), and § 19-2.5-802(4)(b)(XI)
(dealing with previous commitment to the department of human
services “following an adjudication”) (emphasis added). The
contrast is particularly stark in section 19-2.5-802(4)(b)(XIII), which
includes a reference to both the current and prior offenses:
“Whether the juvenile is sixteen years of age or older at the time of
the offense and has been twice previously adjudicated a juvenile
delinquent . . . .” (Emphasis added.) Cf. § 19-2.5-801(1)(c)(II),
C.R.S. 2022 (using the language “[i]s found to have a prior
adjudicated felony offense” when imposing a prior adjudication
requirement for direct filing a case against a juvenile in district
court).
¶ 24 To put a finer point on it, for the statute to mean what Dennel
contends it means, it would need to be written differently. Instead
of providing that the petition must allege that the juvenile is
“[f]ourteen years of age or older at the time of the commission of the
alleged offense and is a juvenile delinquent by virtue of having
committed a delinquent act that constitutes a felony,” it would use
the phrase “has been previously adjudicated” in place of “is,”
11 leaving a statute reading as follows (with deleted existing language
shown in strike-through and added hypothetical language
underlined):
(1)(a) The juvenile court may enter an order certifying a juvenile to be held for criminal proceedings in the district court if:
(I) A petition filed in juvenile court alleges the juvenile is:
....
(B) Fourteen years of age or older at the time of the commission of the alleged offense and is has been previously adjudicated a juvenile delinquent by virtue of having committed a delinquent act that constitutes a felony.
Indeed, as discussed above, “has been previously adjudicated” is
the phrase that the legislature has used when describing
adjudicatory history. See also, e.g., § 19-2.5-1125(2), C.R.S. 2022
(“A juvenile is a repeat juvenile offender if the juvenile has been
previously adjudicated a juvenile delinquent and is adjudicated a
juvenile delinquent for a delinquent act that constitutes a
felony . . . .”) (emphasis added). But that’s not the statute the
legislature adopted. See, e.g., Dep’t of Revenue v. Agilent Techs.,
Inc., 2019 CO 41, ¶ 16 (“[W]e must respect the legislature’s choice
12 of language, and we will not add words to a statute or subtract
words from it.”).
¶ 25 And Nelson doesn’t persuade us otherwise, which is where we
turn next.
2. Addressing Nelson
Dennel relies on the division’s opinion in Nelson to argue that
for a fifteen-year-old’s juvenile case to be eligible for transfer, he
must have a prior adjudication. Nelson, ¶ 12.
¶ 26 The question presented in Nelson was whether the district
court had jurisdiction over Nelson, a juvenile, following a change in
the direct file statute — a change that was adopted after Nelson had
been charged but before he pleaded guilty. Id. at ¶ 2. Nelson
argued that because the felony to which he pleaded guilty was no
longer eligible for direct filing in district court, the district court
lacked jurisdiction over him and his case. Id. at ¶ 10. In rejecting
Nelson’s contention, the division held that the district court had
jurisdiction to accept Nelson’s plea and impose a sentence if
Nelson’s case was eligible for either direct file or transfer. Id. at
¶ 12. And in determining that Nelson’s case was eligible for
transfer, the division observed,
13 According to the presentence investigation report, Nelson had pleaded guilty to at least three prior felony charges and was therefore a juvenile delinquent at the time of the subject offense. Therefore, although Nelson’s offenses are not eligible for direct filing under the current version of the [direct file s]tatute, they are eligible for district court jurisdiction under [the transfer statute].
Id. (citations omitted).
¶ 27 To be sure, in reaching its conclusion that Nelson’s case was
eligible for transfer to district court, the division in Nelson
interpreted the transfer statute to require a prior felony
adjudication — the very interpretation that Dennel is urging us to
adopt. Id. For two reasons, however, we aren’t persuaded that the
division in Nelson got the interpretation of this part of the transfer
statute correct. See People v. Daley, 2021 COA 85, ¶ 89 (we aren’t
bound by decisions of prior divisions).
¶ 28 First, the division in Nelson didn’t have to parse the statute to
the extent that we must here. In Nelson, it was undisputed that the
juvenile both pleaded guilty to a felony in the case at issue and had
prior felony adjudications. Nelson, ¶ 12 (noting that Nelson had
“pleaded guilty to at least three prior felony charges”). Thus,
regardless of whether the phrase “is a juvenile delinquent by virtue
14 of having committed a delinquent act that constitutes a felony,”
§ 19-2.5-802(1)(a)(I)(B), referred to the charged offense or the
juvenile’s adjudicatory history, the result would have been the same
for Nelson: his case was eligible for transfer. Accordingly, the
Nelson division wasn’t required to grapple with the precise issue we
have before us: whether a juvenile is transfer-eligible without a
previous delinquency adjudication for a felony.
¶ 29 Second, for the reasons previously articulated, our reading of
the statute’s plain language leads us to a different conclusion.
Accordingly, given that the outcome in Nelson didn’t turn on this
issue and the division only addressed it in passing, we aren’t
persuaded by Nelson to depart from our plain language statutory
analysis laid out in Part II.B.1 above.
3. The Purpose of the Children’s Code and Policy Considerations Don’t Require a Different Interpretation
¶ 30 Finally, we aren’t persuaded by Dennel’s contention that the
“overall theme” of the Children’s Code “demands that a prior felony
adjudication is necessary to transfer a fourteen- or fifteen-year-old
to adult court.”
15 ¶ 31 While section 19-2.5-802(1)(a)(I) sets forth the minimum
requirements for transfer eligibility, a juvenile whose case satisfies
those minimum requirements isn’t automatically transferred to
district court upon the request of a prosecutor. Far from it.
Instead, after investigation and a hearing, the juvenile court is
required to determine whether “it would be contrary to the best
interests of the juvenile or of the public to retain jurisdiction.” § 19-
2.5-802(1)(a)(II). Among the factors the juvenile court must consider
in this inquiry are the juvenile’s previous adjudicatory history, see
§ 19-2.5-802(4)(b)(V), (IX), (X), (XI), (XIII), and the seriousness of the
charged offense, see § 19-2.5-802(4)(b)(I), (II), (III), (VII), (VIII).
¶ 32 Thus, the legislature determined that both the seriousness of
the charged offense and the juvenile’s adjudicatory history (or lack
thereof) must be taken into account when a juvenile court decides
whether to transfer a case to district court. But when drawing a
bright line with respect to who is eligible for transfer, the statute the
legislature crafted focuses only on the juvenile’s age and the
seriousness of the presently charged offense. We aren’t at liberty to
second-guess that policy judgment or add requirements to it. See
Agilent Techs., ¶ 16.
16 C. Application
¶ 33 The petition charging Dennel alleged that he is a juvenile
delinquent “by virtue of having committed a delinquent act that
constitutes a felony” — namely, second degree murder, a class 2
felony — and that he was “[f]ourteen years of age or older at the
time of the commission of the alleged offense.” This satisfied the
requirements of section 19-2.5-802(1)(a)(I)(B), notwithstanding the
fact that Dennel had no prior felony adjudications. Dennel doesn’t
challenge any other aspect of the transfer proceedings on appeal.
Because the juvenile court complied with the transfer statute in
certifying Dennel to be held for criminal proceedings in district
court, the transfer was proper. And because the transfer was
proper, the district court had jurisdiction to accept Dennel’s plea to
manslaughter, a class 4 felony, and sentence him as it did. See
§ 19-2.5-802(1)(d)(I), (II).
III. Attorney General’s Waiver Contention
¶ 34 On appeal, the Attorney General argues, in the alternative,
that even if we were to interpret the transfer statute as Dennel
urges, Dennel’s plea to the class 4 felony of manslaughter waived
any challenge he may have to the district court’s authority to take
17 his plea and impose a sentence. See, e.g., Patton v. People, 35 P.3d
124, 128 (Colo. 2001) (a guilty plea generally waives all
nonjurisdictional challenges to a conviction); Wood v. People, 255
P.3d 1136, 1140 (Colo. 2011) (distinguishing between a court’s
subject matter jurisdiction and its authority to act). Dennel
responds that this isn’t so because his challenge is to the district
court’s subject matter jurisdiction over his case, and this
jurisdictional challenge isn’t waivable. See, e.g., § 19-2.5-103(1)
(vesting “exclusive original jurisdiction” over juveniles in the
juvenile court “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by law”); People v.
Wetter, 985 P.2d 79, 80 (Colo. App. 1999) (a challenge to a court’s
subject matter jurisdiction survives a plea and may be raised at any
time, including for the first time on appeal).
¶ 35 At the core of this dispute is whether failure to satisfy the
statutory prerequisites for transfer is jurisdictional or not. This, in
turn, implicates whether the General Assembly may constitutionally
limit the general jurisdiction of district courts. See Colo. Const.
art. VI, § 9(1) (“The district courts . . . shall have original
jurisdiction in all civil, probate, and criminal cases, except as
otherwise provided herein . . . .”); cf. People ex rel. Terrell v. Dist. Ct.,
18 164 Colo. 437, 441, 435 P.2d 763, 765 (1967) (recognizing that the
General Assembly could, without offending the constitution, remove
the Denver District Court’s jurisdiction over criminal cases
involving children under the age of sixteen charged with felonies by
exercising its “power to create and define crimes” and “within
reasonable limits [to] fix the age below which there can be no
criminal responsibility”); People v. Sandoval, 2016 COA 57, ¶¶ 20-
22 (framing issues related to the direct file statute as implicating
the General Assembly’s authority to limit the Denver District
Court’s constitutional jurisdiction).
¶ 36 Because we conclude that, based on his age and the charge
contained in the petition, Dennel was eligible for transfer, we leave
for another day the question of whether a juvenile who is statutorily
ineligible for transfer to district court waives a challenge to the
district court’s authority over him by entering a guilty plea in
district court or if that defect is jurisdictional such that it survives
the plea and can be raised for the first time on appeal. See People
v. Timoshchuk, 2018 COA 153, ¶ 14 (recognizing that courts should
avoid constitutional issues that need not be resolved in order to
decide a case); see also Cnty. Ct. v. Allen, 442 U.S. 140, 154 (1979)
19 (Courts “have a duty to decide constitutional questions when
necessary to dispose of the litigation before them. But they have an
equally strong duty to avoid constitutional issues that need not be
resolved in order to determine the rights of the parties to the case
under consideration.”).
IV. Conclusion
¶ 37 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s
JUDGE J. JONES and JUDGE SCHUTZ concur.