People v. Rockne, 315 P.3d 172

In 2006, defendant faced multiple charges including attempted second degree murder and first degree assault stemming from an assault on his then-girlfriend.
In 2008, in exchange for dismissal of charges, defendant pled no contest to criminal mischief with a deferred judgment and sentence conditioned on restitution.
The victim sought $78,550 for medical and related costs; defendant contested the claim as inflated and potentially unrelated.
In August 2008, the court tentatively awarded $8,810 restitution, but did not finalize it and left open the possibility of future increases.
Defendant’s deferred sentence was later revoked; at sentencing in December 2009, restitution for reconstructive surgery was discussed but not finalized, and the court’s order left open the issue of future restitution.
From 2010–2011 the People sought over $35,000 in supplemental restitution; a third judge denied these requests as improper under the statute, or as violating finality/double jeopardy unless conditions for increases were met.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the supplemental restitution was barred by the ninety-day limit.	People contend statute allows increases when final amount not set and losses not known.	Defendant argues finality of restitution and lack of knowledge bar increases.	Remand needed to resolve whether final amount was set and losses were known.
Whether the restitution statute permits increases to an existing order under 18-1.3-603(3).	People assert statute permits increases under identified conditions.	Defendant argues strict ninety-day limit and finality restrict increases.	Statute permits increases under the specified conditions; not barred by ninety-day limit.
What constitutes finality of a restitution order for purposes of the statute.	People emphasize that the December 2009 order was not final; continuation allowed.	Court felt a final amount had been determined.	The December 2009 order did not finalize the amount; remand to determine remaining issues.

Romero v. People, 179 P.3d 984 (Colo.2007) (double jeopardy limits and finality considerations in restitution contexts)
Castellano v. People, 209 P.3d 1208 (Colo.App.2009) (finality and court authority to adjust restitution under statute)
Chaves v. People, 32 P.3d 613 (Colo.App.2001) (double jeopardy and restitution adjustments considered under statute)
Chavez v. People, 32 P.3d 614 (Colo.App.2001) (statutory interpretation guiding restitution modification rights)
People v. Summers, 208 P.3d 251 (Colo.2009) (statutory interpretation guiding restitution periods and allowances)
People v. J.J.H., 17 P.3d 159 (Colo.2001) (knowledge standard in restitution provisions (actual knowledge))