context: However, this would produce an absurd result that is clearly contrary to the objectives of the juvenile justice system. Hence, such a construction also would violate a well-established rule of statutory construction.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 31 P.3d 180, 182
citation_a.parenthetical: "we must be mindful of the effects of our interpretation and should avoid statutory constructions that lead to absurd results"
citation_a.sentence: See People v. Haghshenas, 31 P.3d 180, 182 (Colo.App.2001) (“we must be mindful of the effects of our interpretation and should avoid statutory constructions that lead to absurd results”); see also People v. Wortham, 928 P.2d 771, 774 (Colo.App.1996) (although trial court’s noneompliance with mandatory deadlines in special sentencing statute deprived court of authority to impose sentence pursuant to that statute, the noncompliance did not result in a divestiture of jurisdiction).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 928 P.2d 771, 774
citation_b.parenthetical: although trial court's noneompliance with mandatory deadlines in special sentencing statute deprived court of authority to impose sentence pursuant to that statute, the noncompliance did not result in a divestiture of jurisdiction
citation_b.sentence: See People v. Haghshenas, 31 P.3d 180, 182 (Colo.App.2001) (“we must be mindful of the effects of our interpretation and should avoid statutory constructions that lead to absurd results”); see also People v. Wortham, 928 P.2d 771, 774 (Colo.App.1996) (although trial court’s noneompliance with mandatory deadlines in special sentencing statute deprived court of authority to impose sentence pursuant to that statute, the noncompliance did not result in a divestiture of jurisdiction).