Martinez v. People4/26/1971
[174 Colo Page 366] Defendant-Petitioner, Mary Jane Martinez, was charged with a series of violations of municipal ordinances and state laws in connection with an automobile accident which occurred on June 22, 1969. Pertinent to this appeal were a charge, and subsequent conviction, in Aurora municipal court of a violation of Aurora Municipal Ordinance § 11-18-4, careless driving; and a charge, and subsequent conviction, in Arapahoe county court, of a violation of 1967 Perm. Supp., C.R.S. 1963, 13-5-30, driving under the influence of alcohol. The conviction in the county court on the charge of "driving under the influence" was appealed to the district court of Arapahoe County which held that evidence of the earlier conviction for careless driving in the Aurora municipal court did not preclude the county court conviction.
Certiorari was granted by this court on the issues which we discuss below. We note that no responsive pleadings were filed by the people, either in response to the Petition for Certiorari, or in answer to defendant's brief on appeal.
I.
The defendant first alleges that the Arapahoe county court was without jurisdiction to try the charge of driving under the influence , inasmuch as the statute under which she was charged, 1967 Perm. Supp., C.R.S. 1963, 13-5-30, had been repealed after the alleged violation but prior to trial. We find this argument to be without merit. The language of the general saving clause contained in C.R.S. 1963, 135-1-7, is as follows:
" Penalties and liabilities not released by repeal. The repeal, revision, amendment or consolidation of any statute or part of a statute or section or part of a section of any statute, shall not have the effect to release, extinguish, alter, modify or change in whole or in part any penalty, forfeiture or liability, either civil or criminal , which shall have been incurred under such statute, unless the repealing, revising, amending or consolidating act shall so expressly provide; and such statute or part of a statute or section or part of a section of a statute so repealed, amended or revised, shall be treated, and held as still remaining in force for the purpose of sustaining any and all proper actions, suits, proceedings and prosecutions, as well criminal as civil, for the enforcement of such penalty, forfeiture or liability, as well as for the purpose of sustaining any judgment, decree or order which can or may be rendered, entered or made in such actions, suits, proceedings or prosecutions imposing, inflicting or declaring such penalty, forfeiture or liability." Id.
The defendant argues that the only time when this statute can apply to save the application of a statute is when the penalty, forfeiture, or liability has been incurred at the time of the repeal of a specific statute. In
the instant case, the alleged violation took place on June 22, 1969; the statute pertaining to driving under the influence (1967 Perm. Supp., C.R.S. 1963, 13-5-30) was repealed effective July 1, 1969; with penalty not imposed until March 10, 1970, the date of the defendant's trial. Thus, the defendant argues, the savings clause had no effect, inasmuch as no penalty had been incurred at the time of the repeal.
We disagree with the defendant's reading of this statute. As the language clearly indicates, repealed statutory provisions remain in force insofar as pending actions, suits, proceedings and prosecutions are concerned. To hold otherwise would do violence to the expressed and plain intent of the legislature that the reservation as to pending prosecuti
Page 1 2 3 Colorado DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|