Colorado Supreme Court
June 26
In the Matter of the Title, Ballot Title, and Submission Clause for Proposed Initiatives 2017-2018 #178, #179, #180, #181
These initiatives are amendments to the Colorado Constitution regarding government authority in regulating oil and natural gas development. Regulation is limited by not restricting a property owner’s access to surface or mineral property. It is also limited to not impose unfeasible technical or economic conditions on access to property and subsequent development.
The court was split three to three on whether the action of the Title Board should be affirmed or reversed. According to statute, in such an instance with an even split, the action is affirmed.
The action in this case being that the title board approved the language for the ballot titles, which are the summaries for the amendments that will appear on the ballot.
The Supreme Court’s 3-3 split was made possible because former Chief Justice Nancy Rice has left the bench for retirement.
The opinion was three paragraphs long and only said which justices supported and opposed the board’s action as well as that the board’s action is affirmed.
The next step for the initiatives is for their proponents to circulate petitions for the initiatives to be put on the ballot.
People v. Stellabotte
John Stellabotte owned a towing company he used to break the law. He would illegally tow cars and demand payments from the owners. The thefts were considered a class 4 felony at the time of the trial.
Before he was convicted and sentenced, however, the law changed and the thefts were then considered a class 5 felony that had a lower sentence. The amendment did not explicitly state whether it would be applied retroactively. The trial court was not notified of the change and Stellabotte was convicted for two class 4 felonies.
The Court of Appeals reversed the ruling in a split opinion. One side said he should have received the benefit of the change while the other said the change should only be applied to cases brought to court after the change was made.
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and stated that amended legislation that lessens the consequences for a crime apply retroactively, to non-final convictions, despite the Court of Appeals split. An exception being if the amendment says it only applies to cases after it is passed.
People v. Patton
In James Patton stealing two videocameras, he was committing a class 4 felony. Four years later the Colorado General Assembly amended the theft statute, but the amendment did not specify if it was to be retroactive. Patton, whose crime after the amendment would be considered a class 1 misdemeanor, was convicted of a class 4 felony. The trial court denied a motion for sentencing under the new statute.
The Court of Appeals split in its opinion but followed its ruling in People v. Stellabotte, concluding the amendment should be applied retroactively. The court affirmed that decision as the convictions for Patton were non-final at the time of the amendment and the amendment did not specify how it should be applied.