262 P.3d 913
Colo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Cardenas pled guilty to first-degree criminal trespass and was ordered to pay $3,640 restitution.
- At sentencing, he received a prison term and a restitution order, with postjudgment interest at 12% per year accruing from sentencing.
- Cardenas objected, arguing the postjudgment interest portion could be an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment and Colorado Constitution Art. II, §20 due to his incarceration.
- The trial court held restitution is to make victims whole and may be ordered regardless of ability to pay, so postjudgment interest cannot be an excessive fine.
- On appeal, the issue is whether the postjudgment interest on restitution is unconstitutional as applied to Cardenas; the court affirms the trial court’s denial of the unconstitutional-as-applied challenge.
- The court treats the challenge as an as-applied Eighth Amendment challenge and finds no constitutional violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is postjudgment interest on restitution unconstitutional as applied to Cardenas? | People argues interest is not a fine and promotes prompt payment. | Cardenas argues it is an excessive fine given incarceration. | Not unconstitutional as applied. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Stafford, 93 P.3d 572 (Colo.App.2004) (restitution not a fine; not offended by lack of ability-to-pay consideration in Stafford; supports analysis here)
- People v. Fichtner, 869 P.2d 539 (Colo.1994) (imprisoned defendant generally cannot be ordered to pay restitution during incarceration under older statute)
- People v. Powell, 748 P.2d 1355 (Colo.App.1987) (restitution during incarceration addressed under earlier statutory framework)
- People v. Dunlap, 222 P.3d 364 (Colo.App.2009) (restitution entry when sentencing to incarceration; statutory framework considerations)
- Jones v. Colorado Dep't of Corr., 53 P.3d 1187 (Colo.App.2002) (legislative history of inmate restitution payments)