2019 COA 135
Colo. Ct. App.2019Background
- Juvenile D.L.C. pleaded guilty to aggravated motor vehicle theft and was ordered to pay restitution (initially ~$59,417, later amended to $56,349.07).
- After subsequent offenses in a different juvenile case, D.L.C.’s probation was revoked and he was committed to the Division of Youth Services (DYS); restitution remained an order in both cases and a condition of parole.
- D.L.C. moved to suspend accrual of postjudgment interest on his restitution obligations while committed to DYS, arguing inability to pay and the juvenile statute’s “reasonable manner” language authorized suspension.
- A magistrate denied the motion; the district court affirmed, holding it lacked authority under the statutory scheme and controlling precedent to suspend postjudgment interest.
- On appeal, the court considered statutory construction of juvenile restitution provisions, the adult restitution statute’s mandatory interest requirement, and an as‑applied due process challenge (which was not preserved).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a juvenile court may suspend accrual of postjudgment interest on restitution while the juvenile is committed to DYS | D.L.C.: section 19‑2‑918(2) allows restitution to be ordered to be paid “in a reasonable manner,” which permits suspending interest given juveniles’ inability to pay and rehabilitative aims | People: juvenile restitution must follow adult restitution statutes; adult statute unambiguously mandates simple interest from entry of the order and cannot be suspended | Court held: No. Juvenile court cannot suspend postjudgment interest; adult statute’s plain language requires interest accrual and controls. |
| Whether the postjudgment interest requirement violated due process as applied to D.L.C. | D.L.C.: accruing interest while committed to DYS and unable to pay is fundamentally unfair and violates due process | People: claim was not preserved; no obvious constitutional error meriting plain‑error review | Court held: Claim not preserved; plain‑error review fails because no obvious legal authority that statute was unconstitutional as applied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Roberts v. People, 130 P.3d 1005 (Colo. 2006) (postjudgment interest added to restitution to encourage prompt payment)
- Dubois v. People, 211 P.3d 41 (Colo. 2009) (principles of statutory construction and de novo review of statutory interpretation)
- People v. Miller, 113 P.3d 743 (Colo. 2005) (plain‑error standard requires an obvious legal error)