People v. Stanley
2017 Colo. App. LEXIS 1137
Colo. Ct. App.2017Background
- April 11, 2015 traffic accident; defendant Stanley’s insurer (Geico) paid the victim $25,000 in a broad “Release in Full of All Claims.”
- Colorado Crime Victim Compensation Program (CVCP) paid the victim $30,000 (medical expenses and lost wages) for losses proximately caused by Stanley’s criminal conduct.
- Stanley pleaded guilty; trial court ordered $30,000 restitution (prosecution’s unopposed motion) but Stanley moved for reconsideration seeking a $25,000 setoff based on the Geico settlement.
- At the hearing the only evidence was the CVCP report and the Geico Release; the trial court found the Release’s language encompassed the same categories compensated by the CVCP and granted a $25,000 setoff, leaving $5,000 restitution.
- Prosecution appealed, arguing the Release was an unapportioned settlement and Stanley failed to prove the settlement proceeds were earmarked for the same losses compensated by CVCP.
- The court affirmed that Stanley met his initial burden to show overlap by proving the Release covered the same categories, but remanded to allow the prosecution to prove the victim allocated settlement proceeds to losses not paid by CVCP (and thus preserve restitution).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an unapportioned civil settlement precludes a restitution setoff unless the defendant proves the settlement proceeds were earmarked for the same expenses paid by CVCP | The Release is unapportioned; Stanley did not show proceeds were earmarked for the CVCP-covered losses, so no setoff should be allowed | The Release’s broad language ("personal injuries," "loss of services") shows it covered the same categories (medical and lost wages) and supports a setoff | Defendant met the initial burden by showing the settlement covered the same categories; setoff allowed provisionally |
| Who bears the ultimate burden to prove whether double recovery occurred when a civil settlement and CVCP award overlap | Prosecution: defendant must prove specific apportionment of settlement to compensable items; otherwise no setoff | Stanley: once settlement language shows coverage of the same categories, burden should shift to prosecution to rebut double recovery | Court: defendant need only show settlement covered the same categories; prosecution may then rebut by proving the victim allocated proceeds to non-CVCP-covered losses |
| Proper remedy where settlement language is broad and victim’s actual allocation is unknown | Prosecution prefers denying setoff absent precise earmarking | Stanley seeks full credit for settlement amount against restitution | Court affirmed setoff but remanded so prosecution can present evidence the victim used settlement for noncompensable losses; restitution order to be adjusted if proven |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in awarding $25,000 setoff based on the Release and CVCP report alone | Prosecution: yes, lack of earmarking requires reversal | Stanley: no, Release language sufficiently covers CVCP categories | Court: no abuse of discretion in finding defendant met burden to go forward; remand for further proof by prosecution |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Lassek, 122 P.3d 1029 (Colo. App. 2005) (defendant bears burden to prove apportionment from unapportioned settlement for restitution setoff)
- People in Interest of T.R., 860 P.2d 559 (Colo. App. 1993) (trial court must make specific findings when apportioning settlement proceeds against restitution)
- People v. Acosta, 860 P.2d 1376 (Colo. App. 1993) (court must subtract settlement proceeds attributable to restitution-related damages)
- People v. Maxich, 971 P.2d 268 (Colo. App. 1998) (statutory requirement that restitution payments be set off against later civil recoveries)