2021 CO 75
Colo.2021Background
- Benjamin Weeks was convicted of two counts of aggravated robbery and two counts of felony menacing after a convenience-store robbery.
- At sentencing the prosecutor requested that the restitution issue "remain open" and said a written motion with the proposed amount would be filed within 91 days; the court reserved restitution and set a briefing schedule.
- The prosecutor filed a motion nine days later proposing $524.19 in restitution but the court did not resolve the matter within 91 days.
- Nearly a year after sentencing the trial court held a hearing and entered a restitution order without having made an express, timely finding of good cause to extend the court's 91-day deadline.
- The court of appeals vacated the restitution order; the Colorado Supreme Court affirmed, holding the trial court lacked authority to order restitution after the 91-day period absent an express, timely finding of good cause, and remanded for further proceedings (including amending the mittimus).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Weeks) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 18-1.3-603(1)(b)'s 91-day deadline requires the trial court to order a specific restitution amount within 91 days or instead governs the prosecution | The 91-day language should not be read to limit the court; the prosecution's timing obligations under (2) control and the court's deadline can be construed to accommodate prosecution timing | The 91-day deadline in (1)(b) governs the court: the court must determine the restitution amount within 91 days or lose authority | The 91-day deadline in (1)(b) is the court's deadline to determine the restitution amount; it may be extended only by an express finding of good cause made before the deadline expires. |
| Whether an extension of the prosecution's deadline under § 18-1.3-603(2) or permitting the restitution issue to "remain open" suffices as "good cause" to extend the court's § 18-1.3-603(1)(b) deadline | An extension or the prosecution's delayed filing implicitly supplies good cause for the court to decide restitution after 91 days (trial court and dissenting appellate judge) | Extension of the prosecution's deadline does not automatically create good cause for the court; the court must make an independent, express finding of good cause before its deadline expires | An extension of the prosecution's (2) deadline does not automatically establish good cause for extending the court's (1)(b) deadline; both extensions require an express finding made before the applicable deadline (extenuating circumstances under (2); good cause under (1)(b)). |
Key Cases Cited
- Sanoff v. People, 187 P.3d 576 (Colo. 2008) (preliminary restitution order under § 18-1.3-603(1)(b) produces a final, appealable judgment and contemplates a second proceeding to set the amount).
- Meza v. People, 415 P.3d 303 (Colo. 2018) (permits sentencing courts to make specific restitution findings for known losses while reserving final amount for later under the statutory scheme).
- Belibi v. People, 415 P.3d 301 (Colo. 2018) (statute does not authorize setting restitution after entry of judgment unless proper statutory steps are followed).
- Conn. Nat'l Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249 (1992) (courts must give statutory text its plain and ordinary meaning).
- DePierre v. United States, 564 U.S. 70 (2011) (courts should not rewrite inartful legislative drafting; must construe statute as written).
- Nelson v. People, 362 P.3d 1070 (Colo. 2015) (crime victim compensation fund is payor of last resort; victims may seek other compensation sources such as restitution).