Court's comment to defendant at sentencing did not constitute a blanket policy or an abuse of discretion but was an explanation of the conclusion that despite defendant's young age, in light of the viciousness of his crimes, he was not an appropriate candidate for the youthful offender system. People v. Espinoza, 990 P.2d 1117 (Colo. App. 1999).

Revocation of a youth offender sentence requires the imposition of the original sentence, and a trial court is without authority to modify the original sentence. People v. McCoy, 939 P.2d 537 (Colo. App. 1997).

The filing of a complaint or other written motion is not the sole procedure for initiating revocation of a youth offender sentence. Although defendant's administrative hearing was not held and the motion to revoke was not filed until after the expected completion date of the youth offender sentence, defendant's arrest and custodial status tolled the completion date pending resolution of the pending charges. As a result, the trial court retained jurisdiction. People v. Efferson, 122 P.3d 1038 (Colo. App. 2005).

The trial court erred in determining that it lacked jurisdiction to revoke defendant's youthful offender system sentence when defendant did not successfully complete such sentence but the department of corrections mistakenly issued an unconditional discharge of defendant. People v. Miller, 25 P.3d 1230 (Colo. 2000); People v. Valdez, 68 P.3d 484 (Colo. App. 2002).