Peo v. Brentner, 22CA2204

Jay Walter Brentner assaulted his wife and damaged their shared home during an argument in 2022.
He was charged with two counts of second-degree assault, menacing, third-degree assault, and criminal mischief (damage of $300–$1,000).
Brentner entered a plea agreement, pleading guilty to menacing and third-degree assault, with other charges dismissed; the agreement stipulated he would pay restitution for all charged, pleaded, or dismissed counts.
The prosecution initially sought $31,000 in restitution for property damage, later reducing the request to $13,846.
Brentner objected to the amount of restitution and requested a hearing, asserting he did not agree to pay restitution exceeding $1,000 for property damage.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether restitution can exceed the amount charged in the dismissed criminal mischief count	Restitution should cover the full amount of damage established by the evidence, not just the charged amount	Restitution should be capped at $1,000 since Brentner only admitted to criminal mischief damage under $1,000	Court held restitution may exceed charged amount if supported by evidence and plea terms
Interpretation of ambiguous plea agreement regarding restitution scope	Wording and circumstances show Brentner agreed to pay for all damages caused by his conduct	Agreement should be construed to limit restitution to under $1,000 for criminal mischief	Ambiguity resolved by circumstances: Brentner agreed to pay for all damages, not just capped amount
Applicability of recent case law limiting restitution for dismissed or uncharged conduct	Cases do not apply where the defendant agreed to factual basis and proximate cause for dismissed charges	Limiting cases control; restitution can’t be ordered for conduct above what was admitted or charged	Agreement and Brentner’s actions indicate he accepted broader restitution liability
Procedural fairness and opportunity to contest damages	Prosecution provided evidence and gave Brentner chance to contest the amount	Brentner claimed he was deprived of a fair opportunity because he did not agree to high damages	Court found Brentner had fair opportunity and actively challenged damage amounts

Cowen v. People, 2018 CO 96 (restricts restitution for acquitted conduct)
People v. Knapp, 2020 COA 107 (restitution limited to the convicted offense)
People v. Roddy, 2021 CO 74 (cannot order restitution for exclusively dismissed conduct unless agreed)
People v. Moss, 2022 COA 92 (restitution for losses tied to charged conduct unless expanded by agreement)
People v. Rodriguez-Morelos, 2022 COA 107M (evidence at restitution hearing can support greater restitution than initially charged)