v. Ehlebracht

The summaries of the Colorado Court of Appeals published opinions
constitute no part of the opinion of the division but have been prepared by
the division for the convenience of the reader. The summaries may not be
cited or relied upon as they are not the official language of the division.
Any discrepancy between the language in the summary and in the opinion
should be resolved in favor of the language in the opinion.

SUMMARY
September 3, 2020

2020COA132

No. 18CA0224, People v. Ehlebracht — Criminal Law —
Sentencing — Colorado Sex Offender Lifetime Supervision Act
of 1998 — Indeterminate Sentence — Probation; Constitutional
Law — Fifth Amendment — Double Jeopardy

A division of the court of appeals decides two issues of first

impression. First, distinguishing Allman v. People, 2019 CO 78, the

division holds that a sentence to prison on one count followed by a

sentence to probation under the Sex Offender Lifetime Supervision

Act for a sex offense in the same case is legal. Second, applying the

Colorado Supreme Court’s reasoning in Waddell v. People, 2020 CO

39, and Yeadon v. People, 2020 CO 38, holds that a sentence that

fails to include statutorily required sex offender, special advocate,

and crime against a child surcharges is illegal, and therefore a trial

court may impose those surcharges after initial sentencing without

violating a defendant’s right to be free from double jeopardy.
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2020COA132

Court of Appeals No. 18CA0224
Boulder County District Court No. 16CR2030
Honorable Bruce Langer, Judge

The People of the State of Colorado,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

Christopher Daniel Ehlebracht,

Defendant-Appellant.

ORDERS AFFIRMED AND CASE
REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS

Division V
Opinion by JUDGE J. JONES
Welling and Gomez, JJ., concur

Announced September 3, 2020

Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, Jacob R. Lofgren, Assistant Attorney
General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Megan A. Ring, Colorado State Public Defender, Emily C. Hessler, Deputy State
Public Defender, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant
¶1 Defendant, Christopher Daniel Ehlebracht, pleaded guilty to

first degree assault and sexual assault on a child. The district

court sentenced him pursuant to a stipulation in the plea

agreement to twenty years in prison, to be followed by ten years to

life on probation. Ehlebracht challenges the district court’s orders

designating him a sexually violent predator (SVP) and imposing

statutory surcharges after his sentencing. We affirm both the SVP

designation and surcharge orders, and we remand the case for

further proceedings.

¶2 After Ehlebracht appealed, the supreme court decided Allman

v. People, 2019 CO 78, ¶ 40, holding that, under the general

probation statutes, a court may not sentence a defendant to both

prison and probation in a multicount case. That development

caused us to question whether Ehlebracht’s consecutive sentences

to both prison and probation are legal. So, nostra sponte, we

ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs addressing whether

the holding of Allman applies to a consecutive probationary

sentence, like Ehlebracht’s, imposed under section 18-1.3-

1004(2)(a), C.R.S. 2019, of the Sex Offender Lifetime Supervision

Act (SOLSA). The parties contend, and we agree, that because

1
 Ehlebracht’s probationary sentence was imposed under SOLSA, a

unique sentencing scheme emphasizing sex offender specific

objectives, Allman doesn’t apply, and Ehlebracht’s consecutive

sentences to prison and probation are authorized by law.

I. Background

¶3 Twenty-nine-year-old Ehlebracht met the fourteen-year-old

victim on a social media application and then took her to his

apartment, where he gave her alcohol and sexually assaulted her.

The People charged him with one count each of sexual assault on a

child with force, enticement of a child, and contributing to the

delinquency of a minor. The People’s complaint also charged

Ehlebracht with a sentence enhancer as a habitual sexual offender

against children.

¶4 Ehlebracht pleaded guilty to added counts of first degree

assault and sexual assault on a child without the use of force, in

return for which the prosecution dismissed the four original

charges. The plea agreement stipulated that Ehlebracht would

receive a twenty-year prison sentence, followed by five years of

parole, for the assault conviction, and a ten-years-to-life probation

sentence for the sexual assault on a child conviction, to be served

2
 consecutively to the prison sentence but concurrently with the

parole component of the prison sentence. At the sentencing

hearing, the court sentenced Ehlebracht in accordance with the

plea agreement and designated him an SVP pursuant to section 18-

3-414.5, C.R.S. 2019.

II. Allman’s Prohibition of Consecutive Prison and Probation
Sentences Does Not Apply to Indeterminate Probationary Sentences
Imposed Under SOLSA

¶5 In Allman, the supreme court, interpreting the general

probation statutes — sections 18-1.3-202 and 18-1.3-203, C.R.S.

2019 — held that “when a court sentences a defendant for multiple

offenses in the same case, it may not impose imprisonment for

certain offenses and probation for others.” Allman, ¶ 40. The

sentences at issue were consecutive sentences to prison and

probation. Id. at ¶ 6.

¶6 The district court in this case likewise sentenced Ehlebracht to

consecutive prison and probation terms. Before we address

Ehlebracht’s contentions regarding his SVP designation and the

imposition of surcharges after his sentencing hearing, we address

whether the holding in Allman applies to Ehlebracht’s consecutive

sentences to prison and probation. We do so because if these

3
 consecutive sentences are illegal, the district court must, at the very

least, resentence Ehlebracht, rendering his challenges to his

current sentence moot. (Because we conclude that the sentences

are legal, we don’t need to determine whether the plea agreement

would have to be, or could be, set aside if the agreed upon sentence

was illegal.)

A. Standard of Review

¶7 We review de novo whether a trial court can impose a specific

sentence because that question turns on statutory interpretation.

Id. at ¶ 29.

B. The Allman Decision

¶8 Allman involved an offender who had been convicted of seven

counts of identity theft, two counts of forgery, and one count each

of attempted identity theft, aggravated motor vehicle theft, and theft

from an at-risk elder. For all but one of the forgery counts, the

district court imposed an aggregate sentence of fifteen years in

prison, followed by five years of parole. As for that one forgery

count, the court imposed a sentence of ten years of probation, to be

served consecutively to the prison sentence but concurrently with

the parole component of the prison sentence. Id. at ¶ 1. Allman

4
 challenged the district court’s authority to impose both prison and

probation sentences in a multicount case. Id. at ¶ 28.

¶9 The court began by observing that a trial court exercises

discretion in sentencing only to the extent allowed by statute; so the

operative question was whether the applicable probation statutes

allowed the trial court to impose sentences to both prison and

probation. Id. at ¶ 30. “[L]ooking at the plain language of the

probation scheme as a whole and the practical consequences of

imposing sentences to both imprisonment and probation,” the court

concluded that the sentences in that case were not authorized by

law. Id. at ¶ 32. It did so in large part based on the following

reading of sections 18-1.3-202 and 18-1.3-203:

 The language of section 18-1.3-203(1) gives the district

court “discretion to grant a defendant probation, ‘unless,

having regard to the nature and circumstances of the

offense and to the history and character of the

defendant,’ it determines that ‘imprisonment is the more

appropriate sentence for the protection of the public.’”

Allman, ¶ 33 (quoting § 18-1.3-203(1)). Thus, “the

determination that probation is an appropriate sentence

5
 for a defendant necessarily requires a concordant

determination that imprisonment is not appropriate.” Id.

And because the statute requires the district court to

make a choice between prison and probation, the

legislature must have intended that the court choose

only one or the other. Id. at ¶ 34.

 Allowing a court to impose a period of probation to begin

upon release from prison would ignore the fact that the

legislature determined the proper length of post-

incarceration supervision when it crafted the mandatory

parole scheme. Id. at ¶ 35.

 The legislature limited the confinement period applicable

to a probationary sentence to ninety days in jail, or up to

two years for work release. § 18-1.3-202(1)(a). This

limitation is “clear direction that the legislature never

intended for the court to have discretion to impose a

period of confinement longer than ninety days (or up to

two years with work release) when also sentencing a

defendant to probation.” Allman, ¶ 37.

6
  Section 18-1.3-202(1)(a) mandates that “[i]f the court

chooses to grant the defendant probation, the order

placing the defendant on probation shall take effect

upon entry.” (Emphasis added.) The legislature’s use of

the mandatory term “shall” indicates that it didn’t intend

for a probationary sentence to be imposed following a

term of incarceration. Allman, ¶ 38.

¶ 10 In addition to the language of the statutes, the court found

further support for its conclusion based on the practical

considerations of an offender simultaneously serving parole and

probation on release from prison. The court noted that an offender

who is released to parole following a prison sentence is supervised

by the executive branch. But when the same offender is also

sentenced to a consecutive probation sentence, he is

simultaneously supervised by the judicial branch. The court found

that the legislature couldn’t have intended for an offender to be

supervised by two different branches of government, with possibly

competing terms and conditions, at the same time.

¶ 11 For those reasons, the court concluded that “[b]ecause the

probation statute does not grant the courts the power to impose

7
 sentences to both imprisonment and probation in a multi-count

case, . . . when a court sentences a defendant for multiple offenses

in the same case, it may not impose imprisonment for some

offenses and probation for others.” Id. at ¶¶ 28, 40.

C. Analysis

¶ 12 The district court sentenced Ehlebracht to probation for his

sex offense conviction for an indeterminate term of ten years to life

pursuant to section 18-1.3-1004(2)(a) of SOLSA. The sentencing

scheme applicable to sex offenders under SOLSA differs from the

general sentencing scheme in that, among other things, it

emphasizes treatment and supervision for sex offenders. See § 18-

1.3-1001, C.R.S. 2019 (“The general assembly . . . declares that a

program under which sex offenders may receive treatment and

supervision for the rest of their lives, if necessary, is necessary for

the safety, health, and welfare of the state.”).

¶ 13 In their supplemental briefs, the parties assert, and we agree,

that because probation imposed under SOLSA differs from the

general probation scheme in both its nature and scope, the analysis

in Allman about whether the general probation statute permits both

8
 prison and probation sentences in a single case doesn’t apply to

Ehlebracht’s sentences.

1. General Concerns

¶ 14 We begin by noting that the Allman court’s analysis was based

largely on the language in the general probation statutes — sections

18-1.3-202 and 18-1.3-203. See Allman, ¶¶ 33-38. But SOLSA’s

sentencing scheme, including the provisions addressing probation,

is tailored specifically to sex offenders and differs markedly from the

general sentencing scheme for non-sex offenders. See People v.

Jenkins, 2013 COA 76, ¶¶ 14-16. The most notable difference is

that sentences under SOLSA are indeterminate, extending up to the

offender’s natural life. § 18-1.3-1004(1), (2). And, even if an

offender is sentenced to incarceration and released on parole, the

parole period that attaches is also for an indeterminate period, and

the sentence to incarceration is not deemed discharged until the

parole board discharges the offender from parole. § 18-1.3-

1006(1)(b), C.R.S. 2019.

¶ 15 Further, unlike the general probation statutes, SOLSA

requires every sex offender, whether sentenced to probation or

released on parole after serving a prison sentence, to participate in

9
 Sex Offender Intensive Supervision programs, which provide the

highest level of supervision. §§ 18-1.3-1005(2), 18-1.3-1007(2),

C.R.S. 2019.

¶ 16 And, unlike section 18-1.3-203(1), the plain language of

section 18-1.3-1004(2)(a) doesn’t require a finding that prison is not

an appropriate sentence. Rather, consistent with the idea that sex

offenders should receive treatment, section 18-1.3-1004(2)(a)

requires the court to consider, in addition to the factors listed in

section 18-1.3-203, the results of the offense specific sex offender

evaluation conducted pursuant to section 16-11.7-104, C.R.S.

2019.1 That evaluation is designed to identify treatment options

and consider how best to manage or monitor behavior to protect

victims or potential victims. Thus, the court’s focus when imposing

a probationary sentence under SOLSA is whether the sex offender’s

treatment needs can best be addressed in the probation setting, not

whether incarceration is necessary to protect the public.

1 Though section 18-1.3-1004(1)(2)(a), C.R.S. 2019, includes this
cross-reference to section 18-1.3-203, C.R.S. 2019, that cross-
reference is a limited one: it incorporates factors the court should
consider when deciding whether to order probation under SOLSA.
It isn’t a wholesale incorporation of the general probation statutes.

10
¶ 17 Moreover, if Allman’s limitation on imposing sentences to both

probation and prison were carried over into sex offender sentencing,

the court, in certain situations, would be unable to effectuate the

legislative intent of SOLSA — namely, providing the most

appropriate treatment for sex offenders. For example, if, as is often

the case, an offender is convicted of both a sex offense and non-sex

offense in a single case, the court may determine that Sex Offender

Intensive Supervision Probation (SOISP) is appropriate to address

the offender’s treatment needs for the sex offense, but may also

determine that a prison sentence is either warranted or required for

the non-sex offense. Under Allman, the court would be required to

impose either prison or probation on both counts, thus limiting the

court’s ability to craft a sentence that is appropriate for the non-sex

offense and that most effectively serves the offender’s treatment

needs. Consequently, applying Allman’s case-specific approach

would interfere with the offense specific focus that the legislature

mandated in SOLSA.

2. Statutory Concerns

¶ 18 We also conclude that the provisions of the general probation

statutes that the Allman court found evidenced the legislature’s

11
 intent to prohibit sentences to both prison and probation in a single

case don’t carry over to SOLSA, for three reasons.

¶ 19 First, unlike a general probationary sentence imposed

following a determinate prison sentence, the imposition of an SOISP

sentence will not extend the length of post-incarceration

supervision. An offender sentenced under SOLSA, regardless of

whether the sentence is to prison or to probation, is always subject

to potential lifetime supervision. §§ 18-1.3-1004(2)(a), 18-1.3-

1005(1)(b). Thus, there is no difference in the length of post-

incarceration supervision if a sex offender convicted of both a sex

offense and a non-sex offense is sentenced to prison for both

offenses, or, instead, is sentenced to parole for the sex offense and

prison for the non-sex offense.

¶ 20 Second, the cap on confinement that may be imposed in

conjunction with a probationary sentence under section 18-1.3-

202(1)(a) isn’t present in section 18-1.3-1004(2). Instead, section

18-1.3-1004(2)(b) authorizes the court to order, as a condition of

probation, that a sex offender be placed in a residential community

corrections program “for a minimum period specified by the court.”

12
¶ 21 Third, although section 18-1.3-202(1)(a) requires that the

order to probation take effect when entered, there is no

corresponding requirement in section 18-1.3-1004(2)(a).

3. Dual Supervision Concerns

¶ 22 The Allman court also expressed concern that prison and

probation sentences in the same case would lead to an offender, on

release from prison onto mandatory parole, being subject to dual

supervision by both parole and probation. We note, however, that

dual supervision scenarios can also arise when a court sentences

an offender to probation in one case but makes the sentence

consecutive to a prison sentence in a separate case. And, while

dual supervision would obviously arise when, as in this case, an

offender is sentenced to prison for a non-sex offense and to SOISP

probation for a sex offense, given that the conditions of SOISP are

so much more restrictive than traditional probation and parole, we

find it unlikely that conflicts in supervision would arise. In fact,

SOLSA requires collaboration between the Department of

Corrections (part of the executive branch), Judicial Department,

and Parole Board to develop criteria governing when an offender can

be released from indeterminate supervision. § 18-1.3-1009(1),

13
 C.R.S. 2019. And any person sentenced to probation under SOLSA

must not only comply with the conditions imposed by standard

probation but must also follow the more restrictive provisions of

SOISP. §§ 18-1.3-1007, 18-1.3-1008(1), C.R.S. 2019.

¶ 23 For these reasons, we conclude that Allman’s reasoning for

prohibiting both prison and probation sentences in a single case

doesn’t apply to sentences imposed under SOLSA. Therefore,

Ehlebracht’s consecutive prison and probation sentences are

authorized by statute and not illegal.

III. SVP Designation

¶ 24 Turning next to Ehlebracht’s challenge to the court’s order

designating him an SVP, he contends that the district court failed to

make case specific factual findings to justify its conclusion that he

established the relationship with the victim primarily for sexual

victimization. More specifically, he asserts that the court’s

conclusion was based on an inference rather than factual findings

and that, to the extent the court relied on his prior convictions to

justify its conclusion, its finding that he had two prior convictions

for sex offenses involving children was erroneous. We don’t see any

basis to reverse.

14
 A. Standard of Review

¶ 25 We review the district court’s SVP designation — a mixed

question of fact and law — by deferring to the court’s factual

findings if they have record support and by reviewing de novo the

court’s legal conclusion that an offender should be designated as an

SVP. Allen v. People, 2013 CO 44, ¶ 4.

B. Applicable Law

¶ 26 An SVP is an offender who (1) is eighteen years of age or older

as of the date of the offense; (2) has been convicted on or after July

1, 1999, of an enumerated sex offense, including sexual assault on

a child in violation of section 18-3-405, C.R.S. 2019; (3) committed

the offense against a victim who was a stranger or was a person

with whom the offender established or promoted a relationship

primarily for the purpose of sexual victimization; and (4) is likely, as

determined by a Risk Assessment Screening Instrument, to commit

another listed offense under the same or similar circumstances. §

18-3-414.5(1)(a)(I)-(IV); Allen, ¶ 6.

¶ 27 The statute requires the probation department, in coordination

with an evaluator, to complete the SVP Assessment Screening

Instrument (SVPASI) and make a recommendation regarding

15
 whether the defendant meets the SVP criteria. § 18-3-414.5(2).

Then, “[b]ased on the results of the assessment, the court shall

make specific findings of fact and enter an order concerning

whether the defendant is a sexually violent predator.” Id.

¶ 28 Because Ehlebracht challenges only the court’s finding that he

established a relationship with the victim for the purpose of sexual

victimization, we limit our analysis to whether the district court

properly found that he satisfied that requirement.

¶ 29 An offender “‘establishe[s] a relationship’ under the

relationship criterion of the SVP statute where he create[s], start[s],

or beg[ins] the relationship primarily for the purpose of sexual

victimization.” People v. Gallegos, 2013 CO 45, ¶ 11. The “use of

the word ‘primarily’ indicates that [the legislature] did not intend for

a trial court’s SVP designation to hinge on a finding that the

offender specifically intended to establish or promote the

relationship for the purposes of sexual victimization.” Candelaria v.

People, 2013 CO 47, ¶ 15.

C. Analysis

¶ 30 The evaluator who conducted the SVPASI concluded that

Ehlebracht met the statutory criteria to be designated an SVP.

16
 With respect to the relationship criterion, the evaluator found that

Ehlebracht established the relationship with the victim primarily for

the purpose of sexual victimization.

¶ 31 At the sentencing hearing, Ehlebracht challenged the

evaluator’s finding that he established the relationship with the

victim primarily for sexual victimization. He argued that the social

media application on which he met the victim was just a platform to

post anonymously and communicate with people, not a dating

application, and that their communication on the application wasn’t

sexual in nature.

¶ 32 In addressing the SVP finding, the district court said,

I have reviewed the assessment that was
done in this case. Certainly the assessment
finds that you meet the criteria for sexually
violent predator status. The sticking point I
guess in terms of your position has to do with
the relationship prong if you will. The
assessment deemed that you meet the criteria
for establishes a relationship.
In this case the facts are that having two
prior convictions for sex offenses involving
children you engaged in a relationship with
this young woman on this social – what’s the
word I’m looking for – social media app. And I
think it’s a very reasonable inference that you
did that with – for the purpose of creating a
relationship that would lead to sexual
victimization.

17
¶ 33 Ehlebracht argues that the district court failed to make

sufficient specific findings of fact to support its conclusion that he

established the relationship with the victim primarily for sexual

victimization. We disagree.

¶ 34 While the court’s findings don’t detail the events that gave rise

to the offense, the court clearly based its conclusion on the facts of

this case when it said, “In this case the facts are that having two

prior convictions for sex offenses involving children you engaged in

a relationship with this young woman on this . . . social media app.”

The facts of this case are more fully described in the arrest warrant

affidavit and the presentence investigation report. Ehlebracht was

twenty-nine years old when he met the fourteen-year-old victim on

a social media application. During their online conversation, the

victim told Ehlebracht she was fifteen, and he responded, “That’s

not bad if as long as you don’t mind I’m 22.” He then convinced her

to go with him to his apartment late at night to drink and get high

but told her to try and look as old as she could so his roommates

wouldn’t get suspicious. He picked her up near her home, drove

her to his apartment, gave her alcohol, and sexually assaulted her.

These facts amply support the court’s finding that Ehlebracht

18
 established the relationship with the victim primarily for the

purpose of sexual victimization. See id. at ¶ 19.

¶ 35 To the extent Ehlebracht takes issue with the court’s

description of his prior convictions as both being sex offenses that

involved children, we agree that the court incorrectly characterized

those offenses because only one of his prior convictions was for

sexual assault on a child. But in addition to listing a 2010 felony

conviction for attempted sexual assault on a child, the presentence

investigation report also listed two misdemeanor convictions with

underlying factual bases involving Ehlebracht having sex with a

minor he met on MySpace (a social media site). Thus, since all of

Ehlebracht’s prior convictions involved him having sex with minors,

we conclude that the court’s technically erroneous description of

Ehlebracht’s prior convictions doesn’t undermine its conclusion

that he established the relationship with the victim primarily for

sexual victimization.

¶ 36 Lastly, we reject Ehlebracht’s contention that the district court

erred by “infer[ring]” that he created the relationship for the

purpose of sexual victimization without basing its finding on

specific facts of this case. Rarely will an offender admit that he

19
 established or promoted a relationship primarily for sexual

victimization. In this case, viewing the court’s statement in context,

we conclude that the court’s use of the word “inference” merely

conveyed its conclusion that Ehlebracht established the

relationship with the victim primarily for sexual victimization. See

Merriam-Webster Dictionary, https://perma.cc/X3M3-NUSQ

(defining “inference” as “a conclusion or opinion that is formed

because of known facts or evidence”). Certainly one reason a

twenty-nine-year-old man would ask a fifteen-year-old girl he met

online to come to his apartment to drink alcohol and get high would

be to sexually victimize her.

¶ 37 In sum, we won’t disturb the court’s SVP determination.

IV. Late Imposed Surcharges Do Not Violate Double Jeopardy

¶ 38 Ehlebracht also contends that the district court violated his

right to be free from double jeopardy by imposing the sex offender,

special advocate, and crime against a child surcharges after his

sentencing hearing. Again, we disagree.

A. Standard of Review and Applicable Law

¶ 39 Whether the district court violated Ehlebracht’s right to be free

from double jeopardy hinges on the legality of the sentences

20
 imposed in open court. Waddell v. People, 2020 CO 39, ¶ 10. We

review de novo whether the sentences imposed at the sentencing

hearing are authorized by law. See Veith v. People, 2017 CO 19, ¶

12.

¶ 40 Under some circumstances, increasing a defendant’s

punishment after a lawful sentence has been imposed and the

defendant begins serving it “violates the double jeopardy protection

against multiple punishments for the same offense.” Romero v.

People, 179 P.3d 984, 989 (Colo. 2007). The protection against

double jeopardy, however, doesn’t preclude the correction of a

sentence that wasn’t authorized by law when it was imposed.

Yeadon v. People, 2020 CO 38, ¶ 9.

¶ 41 A sentence is illegal, or not authorized by law, when it is

inconsistent with the statutory scheme created by the legislature.

People v. Rockwell, 125 P.3d 410, 414 (Colo. 2005).

B. Analysis

¶ 42 When the parties submitted their initial briefs in this case,

divisions of this court were split on the question whether a

particular surcharge — the drug offender surcharge — was

mandatory, and whether the district court could legally impose it

21
 after failing to impose it at the sentencing hearing. But the

supreme court, in Waddell and Yeadon, subsequently resolved that

dispute. In each case, the court held that, because the drug

offender surcharge is statutorily required, the original sentence

without the surcharge was illegal and the imposition of such

surcharge after sentencing didn’t violate the offender’s right to be

free from double jeopardy. Waddell, ¶ 20; Yeadon, ¶ 13.

¶ 43 Ehlebracht challenges the court’s imposition of sex offender,

crimes against a child, and special advocate surcharges after the

sentencing hearing. While those particular surcharges weren’t at

issue in Waddell or Yeadon, they are subject to the reasoning of

those cases. Accordingly, whether the imposition of those

surcharges after the sentencing hearing violated Ehlebracht’s

double jeopardy rights turns on whether the sentence imposed

without those surcharges was illegal. See Yeadon, ¶ 13.

¶ 44 First, we assume, for purposes of our analysis, that those

surcharges are punitive, and thus part of Ehlebracht’s criminal

sentence.

¶ 45 Turning next to the language of the sex offender and crime

against a child statutes, both provide that each person convicted of

22
 one of the enumerated offenses “shall be required to pay a

surcharge.” §§ 18-21-103(1), 18-24-102(1), C.R.S. 2019 (emphasis

added). As for the special advocate surcharge statute, it provides

that “a surcharge of one thousand three hundred dollars shall be

levied on each criminal action resulting in a conviction” that, as

relevant here, was based on a charge of sexual assault on a child. §

24-4.2-104(1)(a)(II)(A), C.R.S. 2019 (emphasis added).

¶ 46 The use of the phrases “shall be required to pay” and “shall be

levied” in those statutes indicates that these surcharges are

mandatory in all cases where a defendant is convicted of one of the

enumerated crimes. See Waddell, ¶¶ 16, 22, 25; Yeadon, ¶ 11; see

also People v. Hyde, 2017 CO 24, ¶ 28 (“The legislature’s use of the

word ‘shall’ in a statute generally indicates its intent for the term to

be mandatory.”). Thus, because Ehlebracht’s sentence at the

hearing didn’t include those surcharges, it was illegal when first

imposed. See Waddell, ¶¶ 20, 27; Yeadon, ¶ 16. Therefore, the

sentence was subject to correction at any time under Crim. P. 35(a),

and the court’s subsequent addition of those surcharges didn’t

violate Ehlebracht’s double jeopardy rights. See Waddell, ¶¶ 20,

27; see also People v. Smith, 121 P.3d 243, 251 (Colo. App. 2005)

23
 (correcting an illegal sentence doesn’t violate a defendant’s right

against double jeopardy).

¶ 47 But that isn’t the end of the matter. The statutory provisions

imposing each of these surcharges also contains language allowing

the court to waive the surcharges if it finds that the offender is

indigent or financially unable to pay all or a part of the surcharge.

§§ 18-21-103(4); 18-24-103(3); 24-4.2-104(1)(c), C.R.S. 2019.

Because the district court imposed the surcharges on Ehlebracht

without giving him an opportunity to prove that he falls within one

or more of the exemptions, we remand this case to the district court

to afford Ehlebracht an opportunity to prove that he is entitled to a

waiver. See Yeadon, ¶ 15.

V. Conclusion

¶ 48 Ehlebracht’s consecutive prison and probation sentences are

legal, and the orders designating Ehlebracht an SVP and assessing

the statutory surcharges are affirmed. The case is remanded to the

district court with instructions to provide Ehlebracht with the

opportunity to prove that he is entitled to a waiver of one or more of

the surcharges.

JUDGE WELLING and JUDGE GOMEZ concur.

24