People v. Johnson.
2022 COA 68. No. 18CA2337. Youth Offender System—Sentencing—Revocation.
June 30, 2022
Defendant pleaded guilty to first degree assault when he was 18 years old. The district court sentenced him to six years in the Youth Offender System (YOS) and an 18-year suspended sentence in the custody of the Department of Corrections (DOC). Defendant failed to comply with the terms and conditions of his YOS sentence, and the People moved to revoke the YOS sentence. The district court found that defendant had violated his YOS sentence conditions and that the YOS statute required it to impose the suspended sentence.
On appeal, defendant contended that because the district court did not return him to the YOS within 60 days following his detention in the county jail, as required by CRS § 18-1.3-407(5)(a) of the YOS statute, the court improperly revoked his YOS sentence, which should have been deemed completed. If an offender fails to comply with the terms and conditions of a YOS sentence, CRS § 18-1.3-407(5) provides specific procedures to revoke the sentence. Subsection (5)(a) directs the DOC to implement a transfer procedure to another facility when an offender in the system poses a danger to himself, herself, or others. Subsection (5)(c) identifies three categories of offenders for whom the district court must reimpose their original sentences to the DOC, one of which is directed at offenders who fail to comply with the terms and conditions of their YOS sentence. Here, defendant posed no risk to himself or others, and subsection 5(c) applied to him. Accordingly, the district court was required to reimpose defendant’s original sentence to the DOC, and it did not err.
Defendant also argued that the district court erred by concluding that it was required to reimpose his original suspended DOC sentence. However, subsection (5)(c) mandates reimposition of the original prison sentence, so the court did not err.
Lastly, defendant contended that the district court abused its discretion by revoking his YOS sentence because he had already completed most of the program and had only committed technical violations. However, the district court appropriately revoked the YOS sentence after conducting a hearing because defendant repeatedly violated the terms and conditions, despite being warned and offered help to complete the program, which he declined.
The order was affirmed.