v. People, 2019 CO 101

Ruth Williams pled guilty to felony theft and received a four-year deferred judgment and sentence with a $10,000 restitution requirement; she paid roughly $534 over the deferral period.
The district attorney moved to enter judgment and sentence after Williams failed to make required restitution payments and other alleged probation violations.
At the revocation hearing the district court relied on People v. Afentul and found Williams had the ability to pay, revoked the deferred judgment, and entered a conviction for felony theft; the court of appeals affirmed.
Williams petitioned the Colorado Supreme Court, arguing the prosecution bore the burden to prove her ability to pay restitution before revocation and that the evidence was insufficient.
The Colorado Supreme Court reversed: when a defendant introduces some evidence of inability to pay, the court must make the 18-1.3-702(3)(c) ability-to-pay findings and the prosecution must prove by a preponderance that the defendant could pay without undue hardship and did not make a good-faith effort to comply; case remanded for a new revocation hearing.

Issue	Williams' Argument	People/State's Argument	Held
Whether the prosecution must prove a defendant's ability to pay restitution before revoking a deferred judgment for nonpayment	Prosecution must prove ability to pay and that any nonpayment was willful or unreasonable	Under Afentul, once prosecution shows nonpayment, burden shifts to defendant to prove inability to pay	When defendant puts some evidence of inability to pay into the record, prosecution must prove by a preponderance that defendant can pay without undue hardship and did not make a good-faith effort (statutory 18-1.3-702(3)(c) findings)
Whether the evidence in this case supported the district court's finding that Williams had the ability to pay	Evidence was insufficient; probation officer testified to large debts and attempts to sell belongings showing inability to pay	Trial court reasonably inferred ability to pay from lack of disability and possession of a car; Afentul supports burden on defendant	Because Williams introduced some evidence of inability to pay, the court must apply the statutory ability-to-pay findings and the prosecution had the burden; remand for a new revocation hearing to allow the People to meet that burden

People v. Afentul, 773 P.2d 1081 (Colo. 1989) (prior Colorado rule shifting burden to defendant after proof of nonpayment)
Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983) (Fourteenth Amendment requires inquiry into reasons for failure to pay; cannot revoke solely for inability to pay)
Sharrow v. People, 438 P.3d 730 (Colo. 2019) (applies Bearden to probation revocations and recognizes section 18-1.3-702 and Crim. P. 32 protections)
Strickland v. People, 594 P.2d 578 (Colo. 1979) (deferred judgment context recognizing need for ability-to-pay findings before revocation)
People v. Wilder, 687 P.2d 451 (Colo. 1984) (once a court finds violation of deferred judgment terms, revocation is mandatory)