 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Martell v. County Court of County of Summit10/8/1992
Petitioner, Cody Martell, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his complaint. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with directions.
In September 1990, Martell was arrested on domestic violence charges and alcohol-related misdemeanors including disorderly conduct, harassment, menacing, possession of drug paraphernalia, and driving while intoxicated.
At his advisement, the county court set bail at $1,250 and imposed several conditions on Martell's corporate surety bond which the court read to him. The relevant conditions were that: (1) Martell and/or his agents were to have no contact with the victim, her family members, or witnesses; (2) Martell was not to harass, molest, assault, threaten, intimidate, or retaliate against the victim, her family members, or witnesses; (3) he was excluded from the family residence; (4) he was ordered to contact Alternative Directions For Abusive Men for a counseling evaluation; (5) he was to abstain from the consumption of alcohol and/or any illegal drugs; (6) he was to surrender any dangerous weapons to the sheriff; and (7) he was not to be arrested and/or charged in connection with any subsequent criminal offense. The conditions stated that Martell would be arrested immediately if he failed to abide by them.
In October 1990, the district attorney filed a motion to revoke bond, alleging that Martell had violated several conditions of bond by harassing and threatening the victim. Martell filed a motion to dismiss the district attorney's revocation motion, claiming that the court lacked authority to impose additional conditions on him and that the additional conditions violated his right to bail and right to due process.
The county court denied Martell's motion to dismiss, finding, inter alia, that § 16-4-103(2), C.R.S. (1986 Repl. Vol. 8A) and §§ 16-4-105(1)(d),(h),(j), and (k), C.R.S. (1986 Repl. Vol. 8A) authorized the court to impose the additional conditions and that the additional conditions did not violate Martell's constitutional rights because he had been released from incarceration, he could assist in preparing his defense, and he retained the presumption of innocence as to the final charges.
In so ruling, the county court also stated that it would modify the conditions if, after Martell's counseling evaluation, his counselor determined that Martell would not harass or threaten the victim or witnesses.
At the Conclusion of the hearing, the county court found that Martell had violated three of the additional conditions imposed by the court and it revoked Martell's bond for three days. The court also increased Martell's bond to $5,000 and reimposed the same conditions as existed on the original bond.
Thereafter, Martell filed a complaint pursuant to C.R.C.P. 106 in the district court. He did not appeal the county court's factual findings that he had violated several of the additional bond conditions imposed upon him. Rather, he claimed that the county court had abused its discretion or exceeded its jurisdiction in imposing the additional bond conditions in the first place, and then in ordering his incarceration for violating those conditions. Martell also claimed a violation of his constitutional rights.
In November 1990, the county court modified its earlier order by setting aside Martell's three-day incarceration.
Following a hearing, the district court dismissed Martell's complaint pursuant to C.R.C.P. 106. It concluded that the additional conditions imposed by the county court were reasonably related to the permissible objectives of preventi
Page 1 2 3 4 Colorado DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|