2021 Colorado Code
Title 13 - Courts and Court Procedure
Article 10 - Municipal Courts
§ 13-10-116. Appeals

1. Appeals may be taken by any defendant from any judgment of a municipal court which is not a qualified municipal court of record to the county court of the county in which such municipal court is located, and the cause shall be tried de novo in the appellate court.
2. Appeals taken from judgments of a qualified municipal court of record shall be made to the district court of the county in which the qualified municipal court of record is located. The practice and procedure in such case shall be the same as provided by section 13-6-310 and applicable rules of procedure for the appeal of misdemeanor convictions from the county court to the district court, and the appeal procedures set forth in this article shall not apply to such case.
3. No municipality shall have any right to appeal from any judgment of a municipal court, not of record, concerning a violation of any charter provision or ordinance, but this subsection (3) shall not be construed to prevent a municipality from maintaining any action to construe, interpret, or determine the validity of any ordinance or charter provision involved in such proceeding. Nothing in this subsection (3) shall be construed to prevent a municipality from appealing any question of law arising from a proceeding in a qualified municipal court of record.
4. If, in any municipal court, a defendant is denied a jury trial to which he is entitled under section 13-10-114, he is entitled to a trial by jury under section 16-10-109, C.R.S., and to a trial de novo upon application therefor on appeal.
5. Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, if confinement of a child is ordered pursuant to a contempt conviction as set forth in section 13-10-113 (4), appeal shall be to the juvenile court for the county in which the municipal court is located. Such appeals shall be advanced on the juvenile court's docket to the earliest possible date. Procedures applicable to such appeals shall be in the same manner as provided in subsections (1) and (2) of this section for appeals to the county court.

History. Source: L. 69: P. 276, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 37-22-14 . L. 70: P. 151, § 4. L. 72: P. 267, § 3. L. 77: (3) amended, p. 794, § 4, effective June 3. L. 81: (5) added, p. 882, § 3, effective July 1. L. 85: (1), (2), and (5) amended, p. 570, § 6, effective November 14, 1986.

Analysis

• I. GENERAL CONSIDERATION.
• II. APPEALS FROM MUNICIPAL COURTS.
• III. APPEALS FROM MUNICIPAL COURTS OF RECORD.

Law reviews. For note, “Colorado Appellate Procedure”, see 40 U. Colo. L. Rev. 551 (1968).

Annotator's note. Since § 13-10-116 is similar to repealed § 139-36-2, CRS 53 and § 139-36-2, C.R.S. 1963, relevant cases construing those provisions have been included in the annotations to this section. Annotator's note. Since § 13-10-116 is similar to repealed § 139-36-2, CRS 53 and § 139-36-2, C.R.S. 1963, relevant cases construing those provisions have been included in the annotations to this section.

Municipal courts may take judicial notice of the municipal ordinances that fall within their jurisdiction. City of Pueblo v. Murphy, 189 Colo. 559 , 542 P.2d 1288 (1975).

A court which assumes the trial duties of the municipal court in a trial de novo appeal may take judicial notice of the same ordinances which the lower court does. City of Pueblo v. Murphy, 189 Colo. 559 , 542 P.2d 1288 (1975).

A county court may take judicial notice of municipal ordinances when an appeal is taken from the municipal court to the county court for a trial de novo. City of Pueblo v. Murphy, 189 Colo. 559 , 542 P.2d 1288 (1975).

The appellate court in such a circumstance stands in the same position and has the same duties as the trial court. As a result, the county court may take judicial notice of the ordinances which were before the municipal court. City of Pueblo v. Murphy, 189 Colo. 559 , 542 P.2d 1288 (1975).

Courts of general jurisdiction may not take judicial notice of the ordinances of municipal corporations in civil or criminal cases. City of Pueblo v. Murphy, 189 Colo. 559 , 542 P.2d 1288 (1975).

When district court may take judicial notice of municipal ordinance. Where a municipal ordinance was properly the subject of judicial notice in the municipal court, and the case is then before a district court on appeal on the record, the district court may also take judicial notice of the municipal ordinance. Chavez v. People, 193 Colo. 50 , 561 P.2d 1270 (1977).

An executed sentence in municipal court does not necessarily constitute a waiver of the right of review to have the taint cleared on the name of the person. Where he has involuntarily complied with the sanction imposed by the trial court, he nevertheless has the opportunity to have undone the dishonor and discredit of a conviction. City of Pueblo v. Clemmer, 150 Colo. 546 , 375 P.2d 99 (1962).

A municipality cannot appeal acquittal of a violation of an ordinance. Under this section a judgment finding accused not guilty of a traffic violation is a judgment on the merits and concludes the litigation between the parties, there being no right in the municipality to appeal from such judgment. People ex rel. Town of Cherry Hills Vill. v. Cervi, 144 Colo. 338 , 356 P.2d 241 (1960).

Appellate procedure must be followed before defendant can seek habeas corpus. Defendant, a 14 year old, who was found guilty of reckless driving and sentenced to 90 days in jail, was not entitled to habeas corpus relief on the ground of alleged violation of his right to counsel where he did not appeal to county court where adequate remedy of trial de novo was available, but instead proceeded immediately by way of habeas corpus. Garrett v. Knight, 173 Colo. 419 , 480 P.2d 569 (1971).

Applied in Fuller v. Colo. Dept. of Rev., 43 Colo. App. 404, 610 P.2d 1078 (1979); People v. Malacara, 199 Colo. 243 , 606 P.2d 1300 (1980).

This section provides that appeals from a municipal or police court may be taken to the county court of the county where the municipal or police court is located. City of Central v. Axton, 159 Colo. 69 , 410 P.2d 173 (1966).

County court sitting as appellate court in trial de novo has same duties as trial court. Rainwater v. County Court, 43 Colo. App. 477, 604 P.2d 1195 (1979).

Trial de novo is not an entirely new trial, but is, instead, a continuation of the original trial in the form of an appeal. Rainwater v. County Court, 43 Colo. App. 477, 604 P.2d 1195 (1979).

“Any defendant” may appeal “any judgment”. When he does appeal in compliance with the procedure set forth in this article, he is entitled to a trial de novo. City of Pueblo v. Trujillo, 150 Colo. 549 , 374 P.2d 863 (1962).

This section means that a defendant starts afresh in the county court, i.e, if he resolves to contest the charge against him in the county court, he may have a trial de novo there without regard to what took place in the municipal court. City of Pueblo v. Trujillo, 150 Colo. 549 , 374 P.2d 863 (1962).

Generally, municipal judges are untrained in the law. The general assembly and the courts recognize the fact that the judges and magistrates who preside over inferior tribunals are frequently untrained and unskilled in the law, and that they conduct courts not of record, in which the proceedings are apt to be summary in nature. They also recognize that, because of frequent shortcomings in training in the law, safeguards afforded defendants may be curtailed and, by reason thereof, defendants may not be properly advised of their rights in the premises or adequately warned of the consequences of a plea. City of Pueblo v. Trujillo, 150 Colo. 549 , 374 P.2d 863 (1962).

If a municipal court is a court of record, the cause is heard on the record, and the practice and procedure is to be the same as provided for in regard to the appeal of misdemeanor convictions from county courts. Hylton v. City of Colo. Springs, 32 Colo. App. 9, 505 P.2d 26 (1973).

Remanded or tried de novo by the district court. These sections require a district court either to review a decision of a municipal court of record on the record, to remand the case for a new trial with instructions, or to direct that trial de novo be had before the district court. In the instant case, the district court adopted the first alternative, and therefore, the question is whether the court properly exercised the appellate jurisdiction granted to it under the sections noted above. People v. Anderson, 177 Colo. 84 , 492 P.2d 844 (1972).

The function of a district court in acting as an appellate court is the same whether the case originates in a municipal court of record or a county court. People v. Anderson, 177 Colo. 84 , 492 P.2d 844 (1972).

Party seeking review of a municipal court judgment is entitled to file a petition for rehearing unless the district court by express order dispenses with the filing of the petition. City of Aurora v. Rhodes, 689 P.2d 603 (Colo. 1984).

Because appellant's conviction originated in a municipal court of record, appellant had 30 days following the judgment of conviction to file the notice of appeal pursuant to this section and its implementing rules. Normandin v. Town of Parachute, 91 P.3d 383 (Colo. 2004).