People v. Nelson, 362 P.3d 1070

Shannon Nelson was convicted in 2006 of multiple sexual-offense charges, sentenced to prison, and ordered to pay costs, fees, and $7,845 restitution; the DOC withheld ~$702 from her inmate account to satisfy those obligations.
The court of appeals reversed the convictions based on the improper use of an unendorsed expert witness and remanded for a new trial; on retrial a jury acquitted Nelson.
After acquittal Nelson moved in the criminal case for refund of amounts she had paid; the trial court declined, the court of appeals reversed and ordered a refund.
The Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether a criminal court may order refunds of costs, fees, and restitution after an overturned conviction and, if so, which branch must pay.
The Supreme Court held a trial court lacks authority to order refunds from public funds absent statutory authorization and that the Exoneration Act is the exclusive statutory refund mechanism; Nelson did not pursue relief under that Act.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a criminal court may order refund of costs, fees, and restitution after a conviction is overturned and defendant acquitted	Nelson: court should restore status quo and refund payments as part of criminal proceedings	State: no statutory authority empowers trial courts to withdraw public funds for refunds; refunds require legislative authorization	Held: No — trial court may not order refunds from public funds absent statutory authority; Exoneration Act provides the exclusive refund process
Whether restitution already disbursed to victims must be recovered from victims or public funds	Nelson: refunded amounts should be restored to her regardless of disbursement	State: once disbursed to victims, money is under victims' control; any refund to defendant would necessarily come from public funds	Held: Restitution paid to victims is not recoverable from victims; any refund of those amounts would have to come from public funds but courts lack authority to order such withdrawals absent statute
Whether due process requires automatic refund after acquittal/reversal	Nelson: retaining funds after conviction is invalid violates due process	State: imposition/collection were authorized while conviction stood; legislature provided a statutory remedy (Exoneration Act)	Held: No due process violation — the Exoneration Act supplies an adequate post-conviction remedy and due process does not demand automatic refund in the criminal case

People v. Porter, 348 P.3d 922 (Colo. 2015) (standard of review and statutory-construction principles)
People v. District Court, City & Cty. of Denver, 808 P.2d 831 (Colo. 1991) (limits on trial-court monetary orders payable from public funds)
Toland v. Strohl, 364 P.2d 588 (Colo. 1961) (returning fines where conviction resulted from fundamentally unfair summary disposition)
People v. $11,200.00 U.S. Currency, 318 P.3d 554 (Colo. 2014) (court lacked authority to order return where statute’s refund conditions were unmet)
Morrow v. District of Columbia, 417 F.2d 728 (D.C. Cir. 1969) (ancillary jurisdiction principles permitting courts to decide matters necessary to effectuate judgments)
Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432 (1895) (presumption of innocence)