Skip navigation

Under Rule 106 (a)(4) a party may seek relief where a governmental body or officer has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion, and there is no plain, speedy and adequate remedy otherwise provided by law. In re Barra, DDC 01-16 (3/16/18).

Judicial review pursuant to Rule 106 is limited to a whether a governmental body or officer has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion, based on the evidence in the record before the defendant body or officer. In re Barra, DDC 01-16 (3/16/18), citing CRCP 106(a)(4)(I).

The court reviewing a decision under Rule 106(a)(4) considers whether an erroneous legal standard was applied by the governmental body. In re Barra, DDC 01-16 (3/16/18), citing City of Colo. Springs v. Givan, 897 P.2d 753 (Colo. 1995).

This rule permits reversal only if there is “no competent evidence” to support the decision, which means that the administrative decision was so devoid of evidentiary support that it can only be explained as an arbitrary and capricious exercise of authority. In re Barra, DDC 01-16 (3/16/18), citing City of Colo. Springs v. Givan, 897 P.2d 753, 756 (Colo. 1995); Ross v. Fire & Police Pension Ass’n, 713 P.2d 1304 (Colo. 1986).

Hearing Officer and CSB are not required to make specific findings on all the evidence presented at hearing. In re Barra, DDC 01-16 (3/16/18).

Hearing officer may not draw inferences from evidence that might have existed. In re Barra, DDC 01-16 (3/16/18).

There was no error in the CSB’s affirmation of discipline where it was consistent with the agency’s presumptive guidelines and equivalent to discipline imposed for substantially similar behavior. In re Barra, DDC 01-16 (3/16/18).

The task for the reviewing court is simply to determine whether the decision of the agency is supported by competent evidence. In re Leyba, DDC 31-16, 4 (11/15/17), citing Bd. Of Cnty. Comm’r v. O’Dell, 920 P.2d 48, 51 (Colo. 1996).

Different standards of review apply to the agency decision-maker, the hearing officer and the CSB. The decision maker is tasked with determining whether a deputy sheriff has violated DCSR or DSD rules by a preponderance of the evidence. The hearing officer reviews the decision-maker’s penalty decision with substantial deference, particularly with respect to a deputy sheriff. The CSB may reverse the hearing officer for insufficiency of evidence only for a factual finding that has no support in the record; however, the CSB reviews conclusions of law and mixed questions of fact and law de novoIn re Leyba, DDC 31-16, (11/15/17).

No abuse of discretion for CRA to initiate complaint resulting in CSR violation where appellant failed to cite authority for her position that the CRA may not initiate a complaint. In re Leyba, DDC 31-16, 6 (11/15/17).

No abuse of discretion in finding violation where courtroom deputy, while faced with competing demands, acknowledged she left the courtroom without coverage to use the restroom and had to be reminded by the judge to take a defendant into custody. In re Leyba, DDC 31-16, 5-6 (11/15/17).

Reviewing courts accord CSB’s decision a presumption of validity. In re Leyba, DDC 31-16, 5-6 (11/15/17), citing Hadley v. Moffat County School Dist. RE-1, 681 P.2d 938, 944 (Colo. 1984).

All reasonable doubts as to the correctness of CSB’s rulings must be resolved in favor of the agency. In re Leyba, DDC 31-16, 6 (11/15/17), citing Hadley v. Moffat County School Dist. RE-1, 681 P.2d 938, 944 (Colo. 1984); U-Tote-M of Colorado, Inc. v. City of Greenwood Village, 563 P.2d 373, 376 (Colo.App. 1977).

Due to presumption of validity of CSB’s decision and appellant’s failure to cite authority that CRA is not permitted to originate a complaint, CSB did not abuse discretion in affirming violation of CSR 16-60 A. In re Leyba, DDC 31-16, 6 (11/15/17) (decided under former CSR 16-60 B). 

No abuse of discretion in CSB affirming violation of RR-300.11.6 even though hearing officer made inconsistent findings, where other evidence was sufficient to find deputy created a security risk prejudicial to the good order and effectiveness of the DSD and which compromised its integrity. In re Leyba, DDC 31-16, 6 (11/15/17).

Appellant’s argument that CSB abused its discretion by failing to support its findings with specific legal standards was disingenuous where the CSB and hearing officer cited specific rules and regulations appellant violated. In re Leyba, DDC 31-16, 8 (11/15/17).

No abuse of discretion in CSB finding that sixteen months between incident and assessment of discipline did not justify mitigation where appellant failed to provide credible basis to depart from general rule that timeliness of investigation should not be considered as mitigation or aggravation. In re Leyba, DDC 31-16, 8 (11/15/17), citing DSD Handbook 19.2, n.2.

CRCP 106(a)(4) allows for relief in the district court when a governmental body has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion. In re Gutierrez, Colo.App. 65-11 (5/19/16).

When determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion, a reviewing court looks to see if the applicable law has been misconstrued or misapplied. In re Gutierrez, Colo.App. 65-11 (5/19/16), citing Bd. pf Cnty. Comm’rs v. Conder, 927 P.2d 1339, 1343 (Colo.App. 1996).

After a court determines an administrative body abused its discretion, how to address that deficiency on remand is within the discretion of the administrative body. In re Gutierrez, Colo.App. 65-11, 16 (5/19/16), citing Wolf Creek Ski Corp. v. Bd. Of Cty. Comm’rs, 170).3d 821, 831 (Colo.App.2007).

A reviewing court must consider whether an erroneous legal standard was applied by the governmental body. In re Gutierrez, Colo.App. 65-11 (5/19/16), citing City of Colo. Springs v. Givan, 897 P.2d 753 (Colo. 1995).

Court of Appeals reviews de novo the District Court’s decision in a CRCP 106(a)(4) proceeding. In re Gutierrez, Colo.App. 65-11 (5/19/16).

Court of Appeals reviews the agency’s decision for an abuse of discretion. In re Gutierrez, Colo.App. 65-11, 5-6 (5/19/16).

Reviewing court may not weigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the agency. In re Gutierrez, Colo.App. 65-11 (5/19/16), citing Kruse v. Town of Castle Rock, 192 P.2d 591, 601 (Colo.App. 2008).

A governmental body abuses its discretion if it applies an erroneous legal standard or if there is no competent evidence to support its decision. In re Gutierrez, Colo.App. 65-11, 6 (5/19/16), citing City of Colo. Springs v. Givan, 897 P.2d 753, 756 (Colo. 1995).

On questions of law, such as the interpretation of the agency’s rules and regulations, the reviewing court applies a de novo review. In re Gutierrez, Colo.App. 65-11, 6 (5/19/16), citing Sheep Mt. All. V. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs, 271 P2d 597, 601 (Colo.App. 2011).

Reviewing court defers to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its personnel rules. In re Gutierrez, Colo.App. 65-11 (5/19/16), citing Abromeit v. Denver Career Serv. Bd., 140 P2d 44, 49 (Colo.App. 2005).  

Reviewing court interprets agency personnel rules in accordance with basic tenets of statutory construction. In re Gutierrez, Colo.App. 65-11, 9 (5/19/16), citing Abromeit v. Denver Career Serv. Bd., 140 P2d 44, 49 (Colo.App. 2005).