Peo v. Melendez-Carrera
21CA1146
| Colo. Ct. App. | Aug 15, 2024Background
- Ruben Melendez-Carrera pleaded guilty to second degree assault and agreed to pay court-ordered restitution.
- At sentencing, the trial court reserved ruling on restitution and gave itself ninety-one days to issue an order.
- The prosecution filed its restitution motion seventy-one days after sentencing; the court allowed Melendez-Carrera thirty-five days to object.
- Melendez-Carrera objected within that period (on day 100 after sentencing), arguing the court lacked jurisdiction under the relevant statute and case law to impose restitution after the ninety-one-day deadline.
- The trial court ultimately imposed a restitution order 184 days after sentencing, well beyond the ninety-one-day deadline.
- The prosecution did not address the statutory timing issue in its response, and the trial court did not make an express finding of good cause for the late order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to enter restitution after 91 days | Restitution order valid, delay not fatal | Court lacked jurisdiction after deadline passed | Order invalid; authority expired after 91 days without good cause finding |
| Need to make express good cause finding for extension | N/A | No express finding was made | Express finding required before deadline; none made |
| Defendant's alleged waiver or invitation of error | Defendant waived or invited late order | Did not seek extension; just pointed out timing | No waiver/invitation; mere objection timely |
| Harmless error applicability | Even if error, it was harmless | Not harmless; entry of order beyond authority | Harmless error doctrine does not apply; order vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Weeks, 491 P.3d 1210 (Colo. 2021) (trial courts must determine or extend restitution within ninety-one days of sentencing with express good cause)
- People v. Roddy, 500 P.3d 824 (Colo. 2021) (standards for appellate review of restitution statutes)
- People v. Turner, 521 P.3d 1278 (Colo. 2022) (failure to assert a right is a forfeiture, not a waiver)
- People v. Mickey, 537 P.3d 636 (Colo. App. 2023) (order entered without authority is not harmless)