The Court looks first to the plain language of the statute, and if that language is clear, the Court's analysis ends there. In re J.N.H., 209 P.3d 1221, 1223 (Colo.App. 2009). But if the statutory text is ambiguous, the Court may look to other tools of statutory interpretation, such as legislative history, to ascertain the legislature's intent. Crow v. Penrose-St. Francis Healthcare Sys., 169 P.3d 158, 165 (Colo. 2007). The Court “will not adopt a construction that renders any term superfluous or leads to an unreasonable or absurd conclusion,” and instead “interpret[s] a statute so as to give all of its parts ‘consistent and sensible effect' within the statutory scheme.” J.N.H., 209 P.3d at 1223 (quoting Richmond Am. Homes of Colo., Inc. v. Steel Floors, LLC, 187 P.3d 1199, 1204 (Colo.App. 2008)).
We do not, however, adopt any interpretation that leads to an absurd conclusion or is at odds with the legislative scheme. In re J.N.H. , 209 P.3d 1221, 1223 (Colo. App. 2009) ; Bryant v. Cmty. Choice Credit Union , 160 P.3d 266, 274 (Colo. App. 2007). DA has not challenged any of the remaining 2012 Amendments under CCIOA other than the mandatory buyout provision, which we address in Part II.E.
In analyzing the language of a statute, we determine legislative intent by giving the words of the statute their plain and ordinary meaning. In re J.N.H., 209 P.3d 1221, 1223 (Colo.App. 2009). "When a statute does not define its terms but the words used are terms of common usage, we may refer to dictionary definitions to determine the plain and ordinary meaning of those words."
When interpreting a statute, a court should look to the plain language of the statute first. In re J.N.H., 209 P.3d 1221, 1222-23 (Colo. App. 2009). If legislative intent is clear from the plain language of the statute, then other rules of statutory interpretation need not be applied. Id. at 1223.
When interpreting a statute, a court should first look to the plain language of the statute. In re J.N.H., 209 P.3d 1221, 1222-23 (Colo.App. 2009). If legislative intent is clear from the plain language of the statute, other rules of statutory interpretation need not be applied. Id. at 1223.
When interpreting a statute, a court should look first to the plain language of the statute. In re J.N.H., 209 P.3d 1221, 1222-23 (Colo.App. 2009). If legislative intent is clear from the plain language of the statute, then other rules of statutory interpretation need not be applied. Id. at 1223.