It is a matter of jurisdiction—that is, which judicial officers, if any, have authority in particular cases. The issue is substantive, not procedural.People v. Prophet , 42 P.3d 61, 62 (Colo. App. 2001). And because the issue is substantive, the Children's Code prevails over any conflicting provisions in the Colorado Rules for Magistrates.

In resolving conflicts between statutes and court rules, the distinction between procedure—where the rule controls—and substance—where the statute controls—marks the boundary. See People v. Prophet , 42 P.3d 61, 62 (Colo. App. 2001). And "rules adopted to permit the courts to function efficiently are procedural." Id.

Second, to the extent of any conflict between the deadline in section 18-1-409(2) and the extension language in C.A.R. 26(b), which applies only to "these rules," the latter controls because timing is a matter of procedure. SeePeople v. Prophet, 42 P.3d 61, 62 (Colo.App.2001) ("If a statute governing procedural matters in criminal cases conflicts with a rule promulgated by the supreme court, the rule controls because the statute would be a legislative invasion of the court's rulemaking powers.").          B.

The argument is a challenge to the propriety of the sentence, which we cannot review. See Lassek, 122 P.3d at 1033; see also People v. Scofield, 74 P.3d 385, 386-87 (Colo.App. 2002) (dismissing appeal pursuant to section 18-1-409(1)); People v. Prophet, 42 P.3d 61, 62 (Colo.App. 2001) (same). The appeal is dismissed.

After considering both the plain language of the relevant provisions and the relationship between those provisions and Rule 16, the parties agree, and we conclude, that discovery of child abuse and neglect records is determined solely by the standards set forth in section 19-1-307, C.R.S. 2007. See People v. Prophet, 42 P.3d 61, 62 (Colo.App. 2001) (in substantive matters, statutes prevail over rules). This conclusion yields certain consequences for the defendant, the prosecutor, and the court.

Several divisions of this court have treated the plea agreement proviso as a complete bar to appellate review where the sentence does not exceed the agreed cap. See People v. Scofield, 74 P.3d 385 (Colo.App. 2002); People v. Garcia, 55 P.3d 243 (Colo.App. 2002) (defendant's claim that court emphasized punishment and refused to consider community corrections barred because his sentence did not exceed the agreed cap); People v. Prophet, 42 P.3d 61 (Colo.App. 2001) (defendant's claim that trial court abused its discretion by sentencing him to the maximum term under his plea agreement barred). However, in People v. Misenhelter, 121 P.3d 230, 2004 WL 3246112 (Colo.App. No. 02CA2090, Dec. 30, 2004), the division held that § 18-1-409(1) does not bar appeals contesting "the propriety of the sentencing proceeding."