26 CO 39, 26SA25 In re: People v. Lawrence, Isaac

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

The opinion summaries are not part of the Colorado Supreme
Court's opinion. They have been prepared solely for the reader's
convenience. As such, they may not be cited or relied upon. If
there is any discrepancy between the language in the summary
and the opinion, the language in the opinion controls.

ADVANCE SHEET HEADNOTE
June 1, 2026

2026 CO 39

# No. 26SA25, People v. Lawrence-Statutory Interpretation - Equal Protection- Transfer of Custody when Defendant Turns Eighteen.

In this C.A.R. 21 proceeding, the defendant, who was charged as an adult
for crimes committed when he was a minor and who was initially held in the
custody of the Division of Youth Services ("DYS"), asserts that the district court
unlawfully and unconstitutionally ordered that he be transferred from DYS
custody to a county jail when he turned eighteen years old.

The supreme court concludes that, under the plain and unambiguous
language of section 19-2.5-305(4)(g), C.R.S. (2025), of the Children's Code, the
defendant was properly transferred from DYS custody to the county jail when he
turned eighteen. The court further concludes that the defendant's right to equal
protection of the laws was not violated by the transfer because, contrary to his
assertions, he was not similarly situated to another defendant who was allowed to
remain in DYS custody.

<!-- PageBreak -->

Accordingly, the court discharges its order to show cause and remands this
case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

<!-- PageBreak -->

# The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado 2 East 14th Avenue . Denver, Colorado 80203

2026 CO 39

Supreme Court Case No. 26SA25
Original Proceeding Pursuant to C.A.R. 21
La Plata County District Court Case No. 24CR372
Honorable Kim S. Shropshire, Judge

In Re
Plaintiff:

The People of the State of Colorado,

V.

Defendant:

Issac James Lawrence.

Order Discharged
en banc
June 1, 2026

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

Sean P. Murray, District Attorney, Sixth Judicial District

Richard F. Lee, Special Deputy District Attorney

Durango, Colorado

Attorneys for Defendant:

Megan A. Ring, Public Defender

Kellan Schmelz, Deputy Public Defender

Mallory Taub, Deputy Public Defender

Durango, Colorado

<!-- PageBreak -->

Attorneys for Respondent La Plata County District Court:
Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General
Lily E. Nierenberg, Senior Assistant Attorney General
Denver, Colorado

Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Colorado Department of Human Services:
Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General
Sarah Richelson, Second Assistant Attorney General
Michele Mulhausen, Senior Assistant Attorney General
Denver, Colorado

JUSTICE GABRIEL delivered the Opinion of the Court, in which CHIEF
JUSTICE MÁRQUEZ, JUSTICE BOATRIGHT, JUSTICE HOOD, JUSTICE
SAMOUR, JUSTICE BERKENKOTTER, and JUSTICE BLANCO joined.

<!-- PageBreak -->

JUSTICE GABRIEL delivered the Opinion of the Court.

11 In this C.A.R. 21 proceeding, Issac James Lawrence, who was charged as an
adult for crimes committed when he was a minor and who was initially held in
the custody of the Division of Youth Services ("DYS"), asserts that the district court
unlawfully and unconstitutionally ordered that he be transferred from DYS
custody to a county jail when he turned eighteen years old.

12 We now conclude that, under the plain and unambiguous language of
section 19-2.5-305(4)(g), C.R.S. (2025), of the Children's Code, Lawrence was
properly transferred from DYS custody to the county jail when he turned eighteen.
We further conclude that Lawrence's right to equal protection of the laws was not
violated by the transfer because, contrary to his assertions, he was not similarly
situated to another defendant who was allowed to remain in DYS custody.

T3
Accordingly, we discharge our order to show cause, and we remand this
case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

## I. Facts and Procedural History

14
When Lawrence was a minor, he was arrested and charged by direct filing
in district court with (1) first degree murder, (2) attempted first degree murder,
(3) first degree assault, (4) second degree motor vehicle theft, (5) reckless driving,
and (6) duty upon striking an unattended vehicle (i.e., leaving the scene of an

<!-- PageBreak -->

accident). At the time of his arrest, Lawrence was not serving a sentence in any
other juvenile case, and he had no other juvenile cases pending.

15 Over one year later, and while his case was pending, Lawrence turned
eighteen years old. On the evening of his eighteenth birthday, deputies from the
La Plata County Sheriff's Office transported him from the DYS facility in which he
was being held to the La Plata County Jail. The following day, Lawrence filed an
objection to that confinement, asserting that his transfer was done without a
motion having been filed by the People or an order entered by the district court.
According to Lawrence, he had been thriving in the DYS facility but was now
facing an environment in the county jail that was dramatically different and would
cause him to suffer potential harm that was real and significant.

16
Lawrence further argued that the district court had discretion under section
19-2.5-305(4)(g) to keep him in DYS custody despite the statutory language
providing, in pertinent part, that an adult who is being detained for a crime over
which the juvenile court has jurisdiction or for whom charges are pending in
district court pursuant to a direct filing or transfer "must be detained in the county
jail." According to Lawrence, (1) section 19-2.5-1118(1), C.R.S. (2025), allows for
commitment to DYS until the age of twenty-one; (2) section 19-2.5-101, C.R.S.
(2025), emphasizes liberal construction of the Children's Code to protect the best

<!-- PageBreak -->

interests of a child; and (3) section 19-2.5-801(4)(a), C.R.S. (2025), allows a juvenile
charged as an adult to seek transfer of the case to the juvenile court.

17 Lastly, Lawrence contended that his placement in the county jail violates his
right to equal protection because he is now subject to harsher conditions of
confinement than a similarly situated defendant who was serving a sentence for
unrelated acts in a juvenile case when he was charged by direct file in district court
with other crimes but who was not transferred to the county jail when he turned
eighteen. According to Lawrence, because he, unlike the other defendant, did not
have a prior juvenile record unrelated to the current charges, he should not have
been treated more harshly than the other defendant, who was permitted to remain
in DYS custody.

18 The following day, the People filed a motion to transfer Lawrence to the
La Plata County Jail, arguing that section 19-2.5-305(4)(g) mandates that he be so
transferred and affords a district court no discretion to order otherwise. The
People further contended that the transfer did not violate equal protection
principles.

19 The district court conducted a hearing on the People's motion and then
granted that motion. In the court's view, section 19-2.5-305(4)(g) mandated
Lawrence's transfer and provided no grounds to allow the court to rule differently.
The court thus ordered that Lawrence be transferred to the county jail as the

<!-- PageBreak -->

statute requires. The court, however, expressed discomfort with this result, noting
that it wished it could come to a different conclusion and that it would welcome a
different opinion from a higher court on this issue.

110 Lawrence then sought relief in this court pursuant to C.A.R. 21, and we
issued an order to show cause.

## II. Analysis

111 We begin by discussing our jurisdiction under C.A.R. 21 and the applicable
standard of review and principles of statutory construction. Next, we address the
pertinent statutes and Lawrence's claims thereunder. Finally, we consider
Lawrence's equal protection argument.

## A. Original Jurisdiction

112 The exercise of our original jurisdiction under C.A.R. 21 is a matter within
our sole discretion. People v. Tafoya, 2019 CO 13, 1 13, 434 P.3d 1193, 1195. An
original proceeding under C.A.R. 21 is an extraordinary remedy that is limited in
its purpose and availability. Id. We have exercised our jurisdiction under
C.A.R. 21 to address a district court's abuse of discretion or ruling in excess of its
jurisdiction when no other adequate appellate remedy exists. People v. Jones, 2015
CO 20, 1 6, 346 P.3d 44, 46. We have also exercised our discretion under C.A.R. 21
to hear matters that present issues of significant public importance that we have
not previously considered. Tafoya, [ 13, 434 P.3d at 1195.

<!-- PageBreak -->

[13 Here, the district court's order raises a question as to what, if any, discretion
courts have in applying section 19-2.5-305(4)(g). This is a substantial question
because, as Lawrence has argued, other provisions of the Children's Code reflect
a legislative intent to give courts some leeway in dealing with juvenile offenders,
thus tending to undermine a rigid reading of section 19-2.5-305(4)(g). In addition,
the question presented raises an issue that we have not previously addressed and
is of significant public importance considering its constitutional implications and
application to juveniles turning eighteen years old across the state. Indeed, as
noted above, although the district court ruled against Lawrence on the issue
presented, the court expressed discomfort with the result that it reached and
invited a higher court's opinion on this subject.

114 Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to exercise our discretion under
C.A.R. 21 to consider this matter.

## B. Standard of Review and Principles of Statutory Construction

115 We review questions of statutory interpretation de novo. People in Int. of
B.C.B., 2025 CO 28, 1 24, 569 P.3d 74, 79. When interpreting a statute, we seek to
discern and effectuate the legislature's intent. Id. In doing this, we apply words
and phrases in accordance with their plain and ordinary meanings, and we
consider the entire statutory scheme in order to give consistent, harmonious, and
sensible effect to all of its parts. Id. Moreover, we must avoid interpretations that

<!-- PageBreak -->

would render any statutory words or phrases superfluous or that would lead to
illogical or absurd results. Id.

[16 In interpreting a statute, we respect the legislature's choice of language. Id.
at [ 25, 569 P.3d at 79. Accordingly, we may not add words to a statute or subtract
words from it. Id.

117 If the statutory language is unambiguous, then we will apply it as written
and need not resort to other rules of statutory construction. Id. at | 26, 569 P.3d at
79.

## C. Section 19-2.5-305(4) (g)

Section 19-2.5-305(4)(g) provides:

118

A person who is eighteen years of age or older who is being detained
for a delinquent act or criminal charge over which the juvenile court
has jurisdiction, or for which charges are pending in district court
pursuant to a direct filing or transfer if the person has not already
been transferred to the county jail pursuant to subsection (3)(c)(IV) of
this section, must be detained in the county jail in the same manner
as if such person is charged as an adult.

119
Here, when Lawrence turned eighteen, he indisputably was a person who
was eighteen years of age or older and was being detained on charges pending in
the district court pursuant to a direct filing. Accordingly, under the statute's plain
language, he "must be detained in the county jail" in the same manner as if he had
been charged as an adult. Id. (emphasis added). "Must" means, in pertinent part,
"is required by law, custom, or moral conscience to." Must, Webster's Third New

<!-- PageBreak -->

International Dictionary (2002). Accordingly, as the district court found, the
statute afforded it no discretion, and Lawrence was required to be detained in the
county jail.

120 We are not persuaded otherwise by the contrary arguments that Lawrence
has presented in his petition to us.

121 First, Lawrence asserts that the legislature intended that the Children's
Code, of which section 19-2.5-305(4)(g) is a part, be "liberally construed to serve
the welfare of children and the best interests of society." § 19-1-102(2), C.R.S.
(2025). Although the legislative declaration to the Children's Code does express
such an intent, that general expression of legislative purpose does not allow us to
disregard the mandatory language that the legislature employed when it enacted
section 19-2.5-305(4)(g).

122 Second, Lawrence contends that because the Children's Code contains
multiple provisions reflecting the legislature's recognition that young adults do
not suddenly become fully assimilated into the adult criminal justice system at
eighteen years of age, he should be returned to DYS custody. Again, however, we
may not disregard section 19-2.5-305(4)(g)'s plain and unambiguous language in
favor of general principles found elsewhere in the Children's Code.

123 Third, Lawrence asserts that section 19-2.5-1117(1)(a), C.R.S. (2025), and
section 19-2.5-1118(1) authorize courts to continue DYS custody of young adults

<!-- PageBreak -->

beyond age eighteen. Section 19-2.5-1117(1)(a) provides, in pertinent part, that a
court "may commit a juvenile to the department of human services for a
determinate period of up to two years if the juvenile is adjudicated for an offense
that would constitute a felony or a misdemeanor if committed by an adult."
Section 19-2.5-1118(1), in turn, states, in pertinent part, that a court "may commit
a person eighteen years of age or older but less than twenty-one years of age to the
department of human services if the person is adjudicated a juvenile delinquent
for an act committed prior to the person's eighteenth birthday or upon revocation
of probation." In the instant case, however, Lawrence has not been adjudicated a
juvenile delinquent. Indeed, because charges were direct filed against him in the
district court, he has never faced charges in the juvenile court. Accordingly, by
their very terms, neither section 19-2.5-1117(1)(a) nor section 19-2.5-1118(1) applies
in this case.

124 Fourth, Lawrence argues that section 19-2.5-103(6), C.R.S. (2025), preserves
jurisdiction in juvenile court over young persons past eighteen years of age. That
section provides:

The juvenile court may retain jurisdiction over a juvenile until all
orders have been fully complied with by such person, or any pending
cases have been completed, or the statute of limitations applicable to
any offense that may be charged has run, regardless of whether such
person has attained the age of eighteen years, and regardless of the
age of such person.

Id.

<!-- PageBreak -->

125 Again, however, Lawrence was never subject to the jurisdiction of the
juvenile court in this case because the charges were direct filed against him in
district court. Specifically, article VI, section 9 of the Colorado Constitution
declares district courts to be courts of general jurisdiction. People v. Juv. Ct.,
915 P.2d 1274, 1276 (Colo. 1996). As such, district courts generally have authority
over criminal and juvenile matters. Flakes v. People, 153 P.3d 427, 436 (Colo. 2007).
In contrast, juvenile courts have only limited jurisdiction as established by the
legislature. Juv. Ct., 915 P.2d at 1277. Accordingly, a juvenile court has no
jurisdiction to order a juvenile to be placed in the custody of the Department of
Human Services when a district court orders that the juvenile be held in the county
jail pending trial on charges filed against the juvenile as an adult. Id. at 1275; see
also People v. Sandoval, 2016 COA 57, 1 53, 383 P.3d 92, 102 ("Because direct file
cases charge crimes, as opposed to delinquent acts, the enumerated crimes
constitute a class or type of criminal cases and thus fall within the district courts'
subject matter jurisdiction."). As a result, the district court is the only court that
has had jurisdiction over the charges at issue, and section 19-2.5-103(6), which
addresses when a juvenile court may retain jurisdiction over a juvenile, does not
apply.

126 Finally, Lawrence argues that section 19-2.5-801(4) allows a juvenile charged
as an adult to seek to transfer the case to juvenile court. As Lawrence contends,

<!-- PageBreak -->

section 19-2.5-801(4)(a) provides, in pertinent part, "After a juvenile case has been
charged by direct filing of information or by an indictment in district court, the
juvenile may file in district court a motion to transfer the case to juvenile court."
Upon the filing of such a motion, the district court then determines whether to
transfer the case to juvenile court, based on the factors set forth in section
19-2.5-801(4)(b). The question of this type of reverse transfer, however, is not
before us. Nor has Lawrence explained why the potential availability of a reverse
transfer petition should inform our interpretation of section 19-2.5-305(4)(g).

127 For these reasons, we conclude that, under section 19-2.5-305(4)(g)'s plain
and unambiguous language, Lawrence was properly transferred to the county jail
when he turned eighteen years old. Any arguments as to the perceived harshness
of the result of applying the statute's express language are better made to our
General Assembly.

## D. Equal Protection Challenge

128 Lawrence next contends that the district court violated his right to equal
protection by treating him differently from an allegedly similarly situated criminal
defendant named Hevon Martinez. Assuming without deciding that Lawrence
properly preserved this issue, we are not persuaded.

129 The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that
no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of

<!-- PageBreak -->

the laws." U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. Although the Colorado Constitution does
not contain an equal protection clause, we have construed our constitution's due
process clause, Colo. Const. art. II, § 25, to imply a similar guarantee. Dean v.
People, 2016 CO 14, 1 11, 366 P.3d 593, 596. "Equal protection of the laws assures
the like treatment of all persons who are similarly situated." Id.

130 When a party raises an equal protection challenge regarding a statute, the
level of judicial scrutiny varies according to the type of classification used and the
nature of the right affected. People v. Diaz, 2015 CO 28, 1 25, 347 P.3d 621, 626-27.

When, as here, the challenged law does not impact a traditionally suspect class or
implicate a fundamental right, we apply rational basis review. Dean, 1 12, 366 P.3d
at 597. Under this standard, the party challenging a statute's constitutionality
"must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the classification bears no rational
relationship to a legitimate legislative purpose or government objective, or that the
classification is unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious." Diaz, 1 25, 347 P.3d at 627.
Simply because a statutory classification creates a harsh result in one instance,
however, does not mean that the statute fails to satisfy the rational basis standard.
Id.

131 In light of the foregoing principles, the threshold question in the equal
protection challenge before us is whether the classes allegedly created by the
statute at issue are similarly situated. See People v. Young, 859 P.2d 814, 816 (Colo.

<!-- PageBreak -->

1993). To establish an equal protection violation, "the classification must
'arbitrarily single out a group of persons for disparate treatment,' without singling
out others who are similarly situated." People v. Hernandez, 2021 CO 45, 1 38,
488 P.3d 1055, 1064 (quoting Indus. Claim Appeals Off. v. Romero, 912 P.2d 62, 66
(Colo. 1996). An equal protection challenge will generally fail if persons alleging
disparate treatment are not similarly situated. People v. Black, 915 P.2d 1257, 1260
(Colo. 1996).

132 Here, notwithstanding Lawrence's assertion to the contrary, he and
Martinez were not similarly situated.

133 When Martinez was seventeen years old, he was adjudicated delinquent in
a juvenile proceeding in Montezuma County, No. 24JD54. Five days later, he was
charged by direct file with first degree murder in Archuleta County District Court,
No. 24CR103. And a few weeks after that, he was committed to a DYS facility for
eighteen months in his juvenile case.

134 Approximately one month after his DYS commitment, Martinez was
charged in another direct file case in Archuleta County District Court, No. 25CR16,
with second degree assault causing serious bodily injury. Martinez thereafter
turned eighteen, and the People filed a motion to transfer him to county jail.

135 The district court, however, denied that motion. The court began its analysis
by noting that section 19-2.5-305(4)(g) did not address a scenario like that before

<!-- PageBreak -->

it, where a defendant who had been sentenced on a juvenile offense was
simultaneously awaiting trial as an adult for a charged felony. After noting what
it perceived to be a dearth of applicable case law in this area, the court relied on
(1) section 19-2.5-1118(1), which allows a person adjudicated a juvenile delinquent
to be committed to the DYS until the age of twenty-one; (2) the General Assembly's
intent, as stated in section 19-2.5-101(1)(a), to protect, restore, and improve public
safety through a system of juvenile justice; and (3) the purposes of the Children's
Code to determine that it had discretion to permit Martinez to remain in DYS
custody. Then exercising that discretion, the court concluded that because
(1) there was no indication that Martinez posed a risk to the safety of others; (2) his
DYS sentence was for eighteen months; and (3) there was an unresolved reverse
transfer motion pending before it, it was not in Martinez's best interest for him to
be transferred to the county jail merely because he had turned eighteen.

136 Without opining on whether the district court correctly applied the law in
Martinez's case, we note that that case is distinguishable from the case before us.
As noted above, Martinez was serving a juvenile sentence in DYS custody at the
time he turned eighteen and the People moved to transfer him to the county jail
based on a separate direct-filed case. In contrast, Lawrence was not serving a
separate juvenile sentence when he turned eighteen and was transferred to the
county jail. As a result, section 19-2.5-1118(1), which arguably applied in

<!-- PageBreak -->

Martinez's case, does not apply here, and the two men were not similarly situated
for purposes of establishing an equal protection violation.

137 Accordingly, Lawrence's equal protection challenge fails at its initial step.

## III. Conclusion

T38
For these reasons, we conclude that, under the plain and unambiguous
language of section 19-2.5-305(4)(g), Lawrence was properly transferred from DYS
custody to the county jail when he turned eighteen years old. We further conclude
that Lawrence's right to equal protection was not violated by the transfer because,
contrary to his assertions, he was not similarly situated to another defendant who
was allowed to remain in DYS custody.

139 Accordingly, we discharge our order to show cause, and we remand this
case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.