*1 CO fo of the State PEOPLE Colorado, Petitioner, MADDEN, Respondent. Alonzo Louis
Supreme Case 13SC496 Court of Colorado.
Supreme Court 21, 2015
December February
Rehearing Denied
attempted degree third sexual assault 18-7-406(1), §§ 18-2-101, force. See C.R.S. (2015); 18-8-404,. C.R.S. originally was sentenced to indeterminate costs, fees, pay sentence to and ordered Specifically, the trial-court restitution. pay ordered to costs following (1) to compensa- fees: victim $125.00 the victims, (2) fund, tion to $125.00 witnesses assistance enforcement and law (referred to as the "VAST" fund fund (8) Register of opinion), Actions and this (4) costs, $45.00, drug for a court $30.00 (5) assessment, drug standardized $25.00 (6) $1,000.00 testing, advocate (7) .$2,000.00 surcharge, for a sex offender (8) surcharge, to the sex offender $128.00 Attorneys Cynthia payment H. identification Petitioner: Coff- "time man, General, Attorney III, fee" of John J. Fuerst He was pay $25.00. also ordered restitution, bringing the total General, $910.00 owed Attorney Denver, Assistant Senior $4,413.00. Colorado. appeal, 1183On
Attorneys for
we reviewed Madden's case
Respondent: Douglas' K.
Wilson,
Defender,
Jaeckle,
of-attempting
reversed
Public
R.
Ned
child,
patronize prostituted
leaving only
Deputy
Defender,
Public
Colorado.
Denver,
attempted
assault conviction intact.
sexual
(Colo.
Madden,
2005).
appeals,
We remanded
CHIEF JUSTICE RICE delivered the
then returned the
to the
case
Opinionof the Court.
impose
court with instructions to
a determi
sentence,
requires
1 This case
us to
Madden,
decide
nate
02CA0024,
slip op.
relief do
a court
address whether
not to
ed
the order or
case.
public
order refunds from
funds. Madden
thereafter,
Shortly
requested
pursue
did not
proce-
required
no
to register
be
as a sex
dures
Act,
defined
Exoneration which
and that the
offender
provides statutory authority for a trial court
fees, and
paid.
restitution that he had
.Mad-
to issue a refand.
$1,220.00
paid
den
toward the costs and
had
statutory authority
did not have
restitution,
fees
for a total of
$757.75
from
this case.
$1,977.75. The trial
court. determined
the amount that Madden had
toward
Histdry
I. Facts and Procedural
returned,
costs and fees
so Mad-
should
recgived
T2
was convicted of at-
$1,220.00
den
refund. The restitu-
tempting
patronize prostituted
child and tion
money, however,
been
relief do not address
post-conviction
used and
the victim
counseling service
funds.
rea-
order refunds
not be returned.
counseling
60);
could sue
service
Crim.
More
C.RCP.
soned
Bee
money, and the
-108,
over,
to recover
13-65-101
the victim
sections
Act")
required to return
(2015) ("the
"the
not be
Act" or
should
victim
appealed.
process for exonerated
"created an exclusive
*3
defendants
trial
reversed
of
5 The court
Nelson, T44.
and restitution."
decigion,
holding that Madden
court's
statutory
did not have
trial court
because the
that he
of the restitution
to a refund
"entitled
of
public
authority
on
funds-outside
to draw
conviction
his vacated
with
connection
in the
procedures created
refund from the
may
seek such
that he
authority
refund
not have
Act-it
People v.
of this case."
context
in the
state
costs, fees,
to Madden.
restitution
56, T1,
362 P.3d
COA
2018
this court
petitioned
People then
The
collect, manage, and
power to
18
may
certiorari, asking
whether
legisla
inherently
public funds is
distribute
granted
We
of restitution.
order
may
on those
tive,
not intrude
the court
trial court
consider whether
certiorari
statutory
or
constitutional
powers without
fees,1 in
of costs and
may order refunds
¶ 40
Nelson,
(citing Colo. Const.
authority.
to restitution.2
addition
Ct., City &
III);
v. Dist.
People
also
art.
(Colo.1991)
831,
Denver,
835
Cty.
808 P.2d
of Review
II. Standard
from
monetary
"payable
(noting
award
that a
au
court has
a trial
.16 Whether
budget and
implicates
public
sensitive
funds
fees,
thority
to order
considerations,
in
law,
which
question
presents a
restitution
lightly
to be
areas is not
into these
trude
Porter,
novo. See
de
we review
"is
holding that such an award
implied" and
922,
8,
924. This case
34, 1
P.8d
2015CO
court").
authority of
beyond
construction,
statutory
issues
involves
reason,
must have
a trial court
For
v.
novo. Mishkin
de
also review
which we
from
authority to
statutory
order
393,
Young,
107 P.8d
¶ 41.
public funds.
Analysis
IIL -
supporting
T9 None
the statutes
People Nel
v.
.that
explain
Madden
17 As
issuing refunds
a trial court
son,
today,
contemplate a trial court
we also issue
defendants,
many of the
incurred
order
must have
Nelson, and
2015 CO
as the defendant
from
same
fines
public funds.3
gov-
of the statutes
that none
we determined
of the statutes
None
for a
erning
and restitution allow
fees,
those fees
governing the
(determining that
statutes
See T
pay
was ordered
fund,
compensation
on those funds. Similar
may draw
governing the victim
the court
fees,
payment
time
docket
ly,
rules
VAST
discretion").
granted
Specifically, we
may
judicial
costs and fees
of whether
1. The issue
following
trial court
"Whether a
preserved at the
level
issue:
on the
refunded was
certiorari
Melendez,
People
jurisdiction to order a refund
v.
motion.
criminal court has
Madden's
upon
from
the State
(Colo.2004) (explaining
P.3d
crimi-
post-conviction motion in the
appeal when the trial court
defendant's
preserved for
issue is
following
acquittal or his
opportunity
either
adequate
nal case
"presented
«is
.with
being
and the
of law
findings
and conclusions
make
of fact
electing
issue").
him."
not.to
[the]
Nelson, "any potential
we noted in
3. As
granted
to review
2. We
certiorari
only
come
from a
restitu-
refund of restitution
refund of not
68, ¶ 40
3(a)
2015 CO
n.
fund."
See CAR.
costs and
also
but
fees.
("Content
jurisdic-
is not
nor defendants
of the notice
1070. Neither
received
tional.");
49(a)
return
(stating
force victims to
this court's
CAR.
<
circumstances.
I4.
these
under
of sound
as restitution
"is a matter
on writ of certiorari
review
and restitution do
authorize a court to these
is to be
used-and
not ad
do
funds).
from
possibility
order refunds
dress
of refunds-they
do not
permit
the trial court to order a refund from
incurred
additional
several
¶¶
these funds. See
37-39.
well,
fees as
but the
these
statutes
contemplate refunding
fees also do not
parties
point
proce
to two
First,
fees to
defendants.
court ordered
dural rules
allow a court
surcharge,
sex offender
relief,
party post-conviction
suggesting that
which,
collected,
once
transmitted
provisions
authorize
court to issue
state
fund the sex
sur-
Crim.,
treasurer
offender
60(b);
refunds. See C.R.C.P.
18-21-108(@)(b),
charge
$
fund.
C.R.S. However,
neither rule addresses the court's
Assembly may appro-
The General
60(b)
authority to order a refund. C.R.C.P.
priate money identifi-
this fund
permits a court to "relieve a
... from
party
cation, evaluation, and treatment of
sex
adult
order,
judgment,
final
proceeding"
under
16-11.7-108,
offenders.
See-
conditions, including:
certain
*4
ond,
charged special
Madden was
advocate
(1) Mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or ex-
surcharge.
§
See -
neglect;
cusable
(2008).
by
C.RS.
sur-
Funds raised
this
(2)
(whether
fraud
heretofore denominated
charge are
added
fund
the
VAST
extrinsic),
intrinsic or
misrepresentation,
judicial district
the
where
offense occurred.
or
party;
other misconduct of an adverse
Third,
"drug
Id.
stan-
charged
Maddenwas
(8)
void;
judgment
the
is
"drug testing"
dardized assessment" and
fees
(4)
satisfied,
has been
re-
judgment
for services to
monitor
substance use.
leased, or discharged,
prior judgment
aor
16-11.5-102, 18-1.3-209,
§§
CRS.
upon which it is based has been reversed
(2015). Finally,
charged
he was
a $128.00
vacated,
or
it
or
is no
otherwise
§
sex offender identificationfee. See 16-11-
equitable
judgment
that the
should have
102.4,C.R.S.
Sex offender identifica-
prospective application; or
deposited
tion fees are
into. the offender iden-
(5) any
justifying
other reason
relief from
treasury.
tification
in the
located
state
operation
judgment.
of the
§§ 16-11-102.4(4), 24-88.5-415.6, CRS.
case,
60(b)
this
permitted
C.R.C.P.
legislature appropriates money
The
the court to
hear Madden's motion
genetic testing
in this
fund
sex offend-
conviction,
relieffrom vacated
but it did
§
ers. 24-883.5-415.6.
give
authority
not
the court the
to draw on
costs,
111 All of
these statutes
authority
funds. The court had
to
fees,
explain
and restitution
when the fines
grant
from his
Madden relief
now-vacated
imposed,
should be
col
how
should be
trial court
conviction: the
released Madden
lected,
money may
and how that
used.
be
obligation
register
from the
as a sex of
Nelson, ¶ 39;
also, eg., §
18-1.3-209
60(b) empowered
fender.
C.R.C.P.
(noting
drug
standardized assessments
impli
to order 'this relief because it did not
are
expense
person
conducted "at the
of the
budget
cate "sensitive
consider
assessed"); §
(describing
24-33.5-415.6
Ct.,
ations."
See Dist.
imposed for exonerated only procedure provides is money that withheld plained in refunds seek criminal defendants statutory while a clear pursuant Accordingly, re- fees, we and restitution. wrongfully not with- place inis ruling remand appeals' court of verse Because held. this proceedings consistent the case with - order opinion. his convie- with in connection by law and the was authorized HOODdissents. JUSTICE manner,. illegal imposed not fines were Crim, P. Crim. Contra participate. does JUSTICEGABRIEL case, it 85(a) apply in does authority to order a ' HOOD,dissenting. JUSTICE publicfunds. sought a of the 18 Louis Madden Finally, note that the Exoner we on account proper procedure provides the Act ation convictions. The eriminal invalid two has been when a defendant seeking refunds to reim he was entitled court determined to -103. §§ 18-65-101 exonerated. but not and fees for the costs bursement statutes, spe multiple interpret When determined The court restitution. general provi prevails provision over cific the restitution get back he couldalso Molybde ¶ 43 (citing sion. Climax 56, ¶ 1, Madden, 2013 COA (Colo. Walter, P.2d num Co. -, he is now concludes majority *5 (1980)(now 24-205, co 1991); § 1B ¶¶ 1, maj. op. 7. nothing,. See entitled (2015))). 24-205, § Neither at C.R.S8. dified got ¶19 it of I believe and the imposition the statutes affirm that I right, would therefore and costs, fees, and management of by opinion authored court's well-reasoned for rules post- nor allow the Gabriel, companion today's then-Judge In a directly whether relief conviction ¶ 53, Nelson, 68, CO of case By a con refund. receive defendant J., (Hood, dissenting), I con specifically Act identi trast, Exoneration the on reversal a who that defendant clude wins of a source for procedure a and fies refund, For to full a appeal is entitled direct refunds defendants exonerated I in would I articulate the reasons 18-65- and restitution. 103(2)(e)(V). the court to permit the also district majori Because the to Madden. same relief convic Therefore, a defendant's when lacked ty the district concludes authori elects not tion is vacated the respectfully I a ty to award Madden him, authorize retry a trial court dissent. costs, fees, and pursu a {20 proce- inus case reached Madden's process created the ant not I do from Nelson. posture dural distinct through not seek did Act. Madden matter, I but should this difference believe Accordingly, the process4 this contrary briefly view. to address write to order the lacked and restitution. Madden's of of two jury 121 A convicted ¶ Nelson, 45 fenses, . and we reversed appealed, He pros patronize attempting Conclusion IV. presented no State tituted child because the ex took part not have the an- evidence trial court did T17 with a in sex child. engage change value grant a refund thority to two- by the Act the allotted procedures created defendants to allowed Exoneration Act 4. The relief, prior to do consider they year met the even if criteria frame. time seek long passage, as acted Act Act's other he met before criteria 5, 13-65-102(1)(b)(IM), demands, CRS. June actual innocence. such as did not seek refund 454, People acknowledge I at least one court has seen fit to draw a distinction between the standing 459-60 Left Mad followinga degree available on den's conviction third reversal direct as relief sexual followinga invalidation collateral sault. of a Hayes, conviction. United States v. ¶22 review, argued On collateral Madden: (9th Cir.2004). 385 F.3d 1229-80 I am remaining conviction was invalid persuaded Ninth Cireuit's reason at because his trial was constitu lawyer ing. Hayes, .In post-convie defendant won tionally ineffective. See Strickland v. Wash tion relief a Sixth Amendment 'because 668, 687, ington, 466 U.S. 104 S.Ct. violation, government and the not to elected 1227-28, L.Ed.2d 674 thé district retry at Hayes him. Id. then agreed "clearly with him. sought refund from the United States Among shown" his counsel was deficient payments subject he made while to his things, other The, Madden's counsel solicitedtesti conviction. Id. at 1228. invalid criminal mony concerning Telink, panel harmful rumor citing Inc. v. United about States, (9th client that was triple 1994), "inadmissible double agreed F.3d 46-47 Cir. could be costs hearsay," police testify allowed reimbursed officer assessments, truthfulness, but it alleged that, victim's concluded invited context, into "extremely damning" the case other restitu evi post-conviction tion depends gov and when the dence. The court was convinced there exist that, probability a reasonable Hayes, ed but for ernment disbursed funds. See the. 1229-30. F.3d The court concluded errors, Madden would not have been invalidly even convicted defendant It convicted. therefore his convic government cannot recover from him, convict, long it no has government so as the thus, validly Madden has never'been until the waited convictionwas final before ed. disbursing Id. at 1230. The explained 23 As I compared Ninth government's Cireuit constitutionally are not entitled to a direct agent, role to that of an reject eserow it but, appeal, legislature when the establishes government ed the view that the defendant's *6 right, such defendants are dué entitled any must disburse funds before a defen Nelson, ¶ process throughout appeal. See dant his challenges. exhausts collateral (Hood, J., dissenting). Similarly, 58 there id. By granting at & n.6. 1230 Madden a right no constitutional post-conviction denying his costs and fees while is review. 424, v. 852 P.2d Wiedemer, him a restitution in (Colo.1998) (citingPennsylvania 438 effectively this case arrived at the same re Finley, 551, 557, 481 U.S. 107 S.Ct. sult. (1987)). L.Ed.2d Colorado nonetheless [ agree government IWhile has a provides challenges. collateral See 18- legitimate effectuating system interest its 1-410, Thus, Crim. P. payments for crime vietims- restitution challenge defendants have rights among legislatively purposes of declared directly collaterally, their convictions system is the colléctionand "expeditious" the "timely" 'different, though procedures quite are 18- compensation, distribution Court, Jurgevich v. Dist. (2015)-I 1.3-601(1)(g)(ID)-(II),CRS." find (Colo.1995) ("A collateral attack ... does analogy inapt, the Ninth escrow Cireuit's rights ap invoke the same as a direct least for the situation here. is not The State West, peal." (citing Wright v. 505 U.S. required to sit onthe of all 287-98, S.Ct. 120 L.Ed.2d or direct re collateral (1992) (plurality opinion)}. But view; whichever it must reimburse those defen procedural travels, validly dants who are never road a I fail to convicted. The defendant why the State is to retain legislature entitled is free to determine the best paid by ultimately a defendant who providing means of for these refunds. See shows his convictionis ¶ (Hood, J., invalid. dissenting). direct Moreover, between a distinction 26I certain would devalue review collateral on the basis rights purely
constitutional a defendant used tool example, a defendant For them.
vindicate Amendment violation a Fourth
who suffered sought if he direct full couldreceive motion, while suppression
review Amendment Sixth suffered who defendant if he full refund receive a
violation challenge. through a collateral sought review process and dem the collateral used obtained conviction was onstrated Amendment,. too Sixth
violation He As quo ante. status placed should be "[Ujn- remarked, previously court has convictions, being in addition constitutional very abridge char relisbility, suspect its government draws from which
ter anyone." prosecute 345,349
Germany, 674P.2d
(27 just Thus, I conclude Madden costs, fees, and of his to a refund entitled winning reversal defendant as a given For the reasons appeal.
on direct respectful- I therefore
my dissent . ly dissent. CO5 Kay
Merridy BAKER and Sue Petitioners, Kunda,
Carol *7 HAMES, PROFESSIONAL
WOOD, &RIS profession
CORPORATION, a Colorado Cook; L. corporation; Donald al s. Brundin, Respondent _ L.
Barbara
Supreme Case 13SC554 Court Colorado.
Supreme Court of
January February
Rehearing Denied