People v. Madden
2013 Colo. App. LEXIS 607
Colo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Madden was convicted of attempted patronizing a prostituted child and attempted third degree sexual assault, and ordered to pay $910 restitution.
- The Colorado Supreme Court reversed Madden’s conviction for attempted patronizing a prostituted child but upheld the attempted third degree sexual assault conviction.
- Madden sought postconviction relief under Crim. P. 35(e), arguing ineffective trial counsel.
- Postconviction court vacated Madden’s remaining conviction, and instructed the prosecution to consider retrying; prosecution chose not to appeal or retry.
- Postconviction court refunded all monies Madden paid except restitution; Madden appealed the denial of restitution refund.
- Court now holds Madden is entitled to a refund of restitution tied to the overturned conviction and may seek it by motion in this case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Madden entitled to a refund of restitution for the overturned conviction? | Madden should recover restitution paid in connection with the overturned conviction. | Restitution should be preserved or treated differently when a conviction is overturned on collateral grounds. | Yes; Madden is entitled to restitution refund. |
| Can Madden seek the refund via a motion within this case rather than a separate proceeding? | Refund may be sought within this case per Nelson. | Separate proceeding may be required or different procedural route. | Yes; may seek refund by filing a motion in this case. |
| Should the restitution be refunded given no valid conviction remains? | Restitution should be returned to restore status quo ante. | Argues for a distinguishable rule based on finality or collateral attacks. | Yes; restitution must be refunded to restore status quo ante. |
| Does a policy distinction (e.g., Hayes) control outcome? | Distinction would be inappropriate; focus on wrongful state action. | Hayes coloring the rule supports non-refund in some cases. | The Court rejects the Hayes distinction; refunds warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Nelson, 369 P.3d 625 (Colo. 2013) (restitution refund when conviction overturned on appeal on remand)
- United States v. Hayes, 385 F.3d 1226 (9th Cir. 2004) (refunds not automatic when conviction affirmed but retrial not pursued)
- Cooper v. Gordon, 389 So.2d 318 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980) (status quo ante restoration after reversal and remand)
- Toland v. Strohl, 147 Colo. 577, 364 P.2d 588 (Colo. 1961) (restitution refunds when conviction vacated to restore status quo)
- United States v. Venneri, 782 F. Supp. 1091 (D. Md. 1991) (establishes restitution refund imperative to justice)
- People v. Daly, 313 P.3d 571 (Colo. App. No. 10CA0580, 2011) (distinguishes cases where guilt proven beyond reasonable doubt vs. abated cases)