(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.
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.
Notes of Decisions
Normandin v. People, 91 P.3d 383 (Colo. 2004).
· cites it 41× “In its order, the court noted that it perceived a conflict between the rules deriving from section 13-10-116 and section 13-10-117. Specifically, while Crim.”
People of Aurora Ex Rel. State v. Allen, 885 P.2d 207 (Colo. 1994).
· cites it 2× “See § 13-10-116(2), 6A C.R.S. (1987) (appeals from judgments of a qualified municipal court of record shall be made to district court of county in which such municipal court is located, with practice and procedure to be the same as provided in § 13-6-310, 6A C.”
Christie v. People of Aurora Ex Rel. State, 837 P.2d 1237 (Colo. 1992).
· cites it 2× “The city appealed the en banc court’s decision to the district court pursuant to section 13-10-116(2). The city argued that the en banc court effectively declared unconstitutional the prerequisites to a jury trial provided by section 13-10-114(4) and C.”
City of Pueblo v. Murphy, 542 P.2d 1288 (Colo. 1975).
· cites it 3× “court, pursuant to Section 13-10-116, C.R.S. 1973. See also Comment, Colorado Appellate Procedure, 40 U.”
Aurora by & on Behalf of People v. Rhodes, 689 P.2d 603 (Colo. 1984).
· cites it 6× “§ 13-10-116(1), 6 C.R.S. (1973). Since the provisions of the UJSSA are not applicable to municipal courts, it follows that section 13-10-114(2), 6 C.”
Bovard v. People, 99 P.3d 585 (Colo. 2004).
“See § 13-10-116(1) & (2). As noted, section 16-12-101 provides the defendant convicted of an offense the right of appeal from the proceeding resulting in conviction.”
Town of Frisco v. Baum, 90 P.3d 845 (Colo. 2004).
“…remand to the municipal court for a new trial or may direct that the case be tried de novo before the district court. §§ 13-10-116(2), 13-6-310.”
City of Aurora ex rel. People v. Rhodes, 689 P.2d 603 (Colo. 1984).
· cites it 6× “§ 13-10-116(1), 6 C.R.S. (1973). Since the provisions of the UJS-SA are not applicable to municipal courts, it follows that section 13-10-114(2), 6 C.”
Rainwater v. Cnty. Court in & for the Cnty. of Fremont, 604 P.2d 1195 (Colo. Ct. App. 1979).
· cites it 5× “Section 13-10-116, C.R.S.1973, states in pertinent part: ‘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 .”
Fuller v. Colorado Dep't of Revenue, Motor Veh. Div., 610 P.2d 1078 (Colo. Ct. App. 1979).
· cites it 5× “In support of this contention, Fuller points out that the Morrison municipal court was not a court of record, that he had appealed that conviction to the Jefferson county court and secured a trial de novo pursuant to § 13-10-116, C.R.S.1973, and that the case is still pending.”
Chavez v. People of Lakewood, 561 P.2d 1270 (Colo. 1977).
· cites it 3× “Compare section 13-10-116, C.R.S. 1973 (trial de novo for appeal from municipal court not of record).”
Rainwater v. Cty. Ct. in & for Cty. of Fremont, 604 P.2d 1195 (Colo. Ct. App. 1979).
· cites it 5× “Section 13-10-116, C.R.S.1973, states in pertinent part: ` 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.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-10-116(1) — 5 cases
Bovard v. People, 99 P.3d 585 (Colo. 2004).
“See § 13-10-116(1) & (2). As noted, section 16-12-101 provides the defendant convicted of an offense the right of appeal from the proceeding resulting in conviction.”
Aurora by & on Behalf of People v. Rhodes, 689 P.2d 603 (Colo. 1984).
“§ 13-10-116(1), 6 C.R.S. (1973). Since the provisions of the UJSSA are not applicable to municipal courts, it follows that section 13-10-114(2), 6 C.”
City of Aurora ex rel. People v. Rhodes, 689 P.2d 603 (Colo. 1984).
“§ 13-10-116(1), 6 C.R.S. (1973). Since the provisions of the UJS-SA are not applicable to municipal courts, it follows that section 13-10-114(2), 6 C.”
Rainwater v. Cnty. Court in & for the Cnty. of Fremont, 604 P.2d 1195 (Colo. Ct. App. 1979).
“Section 13-10-116, C.R.S.1973, states in pertinent part: ‘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 .”
Rainwater v. Cty. Ct. in & for Cty. of Fremont, 604 P.2d 1195 (Colo. Ct. App. 1979).
“Section 13-10-116, C.R.S.1973, states in pertinent part: ` 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.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-10-116(2) — 8 cases
Normandin v. People, 91 P.3d 383 (Colo. 2004).
“In its order, the court noted that it perceived a conflict between the rules deriving from section 13-10-116 and section 13-10-117. Specifically, while Crim.”
People of Aurora Ex Rel. State v. Allen, 885 P.2d 207 (Colo. 1994).
“See § 13-10-116(2), 6A C.R.S. (1987) (appeals from judgments of a qualified municipal court of record shall be made to district court of county in which such municipal court is located, with practice and procedure to be the same as provided in § 13-6-310, 6A C.”
Christie v. People of Aurora Ex Rel. State, 837 P.2d 1237 (Colo. 1992).
“The city appealed the en banc court’s decision to the district court pursuant to section 13-10-116(2). The city argued that the en banc court effectively declared unconstitutional the prerequisites to a jury trial provided by section 13-10-114(4) and C.”
Aurora by & on Behalf of People v. Rhodes, 689 P.2d 603 (Colo. 1984).
“§ 13-10-116(1), 6 C.R.S. (1973). Since the provisions of the UJSSA are not applicable to municipal courts, it follows that section 13-10-114(2), 6 C.”
Town of Frisco v. Baum, 90 P.3d 845 (Colo. 2004).
“…remand to the municipal court for a new trial or may direct that the case be tried de novo before the district court. §§ 13-10-116(2), 13-6-310.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.