People v. Clanton, 2015 WL 795014

Defendant obtained unemployment benefits using a false Social Security number and a forged military discharge form.
Prosecution charged forgery under a general statute (18-5-102) and an unemployment-benefits statute (8-81-101).
Jury found defendant not guilty of attempt to influence a public servant and guilty of forgery.
Trial court sentenced to 18 months probation and restitution of $12,397.50, including a 50% statutory penalty ($4,132.50).
Court held that the statutory penalty was improperly included as restitution and remanded to correct mittimus.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether forgery can be charged under the general statute instead of the specific unemployment statute.	People argued general forgery applies.	Clanton argued only the specific statute applies.	Yes; prosecution may rely on general forgery where intent and elements align.
Whether charging forgery while a more specific unemployment statute could apply violates equal protection.	People contends statutes have different elements; no equal-protection issue.	Clanton contends disparate penalties for identical conduct.	No equal-protection violation; differences in elements justify distinct penalties.
Whether the 50% statutory penalty under 8-81-101(4)(a)(II) can be included in restitution.	People seeks recovery including statutory penalty.	Penalty is not a pecuniary loss to victim.	Vacated as restitution; not to be included in restitution.

People v. James, 497 P.2d 1256 (Colo. 1972) (single transaction may give rise to more than one offense)
Bagby, 734 P.2d 1059 (Colo. 1987) (limits on prosecuting under the Liquor Code imply broader penal scheme)
Warner, 930 P.2d 564 (Colo. 1996) (comprehensive regulatory scheme; police-power considerations)
Tow, 992 P.2d 665 (Colo. App. 1999) (thorough regulatory scheme factors in statutory interpretation)
Stansberry, 83 P.3d 1188 (Colo. App. 2003) (motor-vehicle statutes contain broad enforcement outside criminal code)