Colorado Court of Appeals Warns Again About Return Deadlines | Courts

Colorado’s No. 2 court on Wednesday again reminded prosecutors and judges to pay attention to the time limits for compensating crime victims under state law, the latest in a series of rulings aimed at barring deviations from the compensation process.

In Colorado, when a convicted defendant is ordered to pay financial restitution, prosecutors typically must provide the requested amount by the time of sentencing or within 91 days of sentencing. Judges must also impose the restitution amount within 91 days of sentencing. If judges must extend any of the deadlines, they must find good cause.

In an important decision, People vs. WeeksThe state Supreme Court ruled in November 2021 that the historic process for judges to award restitution to crime victims did not comply with Colorado law. The justices noted that there was a lax approach in trial courts that ignored clear deadlines and procedural requirements. Consequently, if trial judges fail to follow the law, they lose their authority to issue restitution orders.

While the Court of Appeal has issued numerous rulings focusing on what constitutes a case where a judge finds there is a good reason to extend the deadline, the court recently began to interpret a different element: prosecutors’ obligation to provide details of compensation at sentencing — or, if they are not available by then, within 91 days.

On July 3, a three-judge appellate panel ruled that a Phillips County judge erred by giving the prosecutor extra time after sentencing to file a motion for restitution, even though the prosecutor knew the final award amount well in advance.

“Prosecutors, defense attorneys and judges must be mindful of the General Assembly’s declaration that ‘an effective criminal justice system requires timely compensation to victims of crime,’” wrote Judge Lino S. Lipinsky de Orlov.

In the underlying case, Eredelio Martinez Rubier pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor count of criminal mischief, and District Court Judge Justin B. Haenlein sentenced him to nine months in prison on Sept. 20, 2022. Haenlein, on his own motion, gave the prosecution 28 days to file a motion seeking restitution for the victim of the crime.

On Sept. 30, District Attorney-elect Travis Sides filed a $1,179 claim for motor vehicle theft. He included an email from insurance company Progressive that listed the amount but was dated July 7 — more than two months before the sentencing hearing.

Martinez Rubier failed to appear at a compensation hearing in December, so Haenlein rescheduled it for January 2023. Martinez Rubier failed to appear at the rescheduled hearing, prompting Haenlein to issue the compensation order in his absence.

Martinez Rubier appealed, arguing that the prosecution failed to comply with state law by withholding information about restitution that it already had at the time of sentencing. While his appeal was pending, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion in People vs Brassill emphasizing prosecutors’ obligation to calculate damages through sentencing and to seek more time only if necessary.

“The current flood of litigation on these issues will be largely avoided,” wrote Judge Timothy J. Schutz, “if the prosecutor’s office fulfills its duty to make every effort to collect and present information necessary to resolve the issue of restitution at sentencing, coupled with the court’s establishment of case management practices that will ensure that those obligations are met.”

Senior Deputy Attorney General Brock J. Swanson, who represented the government in both cases, argued that if prosecutors do not show up at sentencing with the amount of money, it can be inferred that the district attorney’s office has not yet received it.

“I also think that the prosecutor’s office will, in the normal course, reasonably discharge its duties,” he said during oral arguments.

“Historically, it wasn’t like that. That’s the whole point Weeks “decision,” chimed in Schutz, who also sat on the panel that heard Martinez Rubiera’s appeal. “That, being a prosecutor, I haven’t followed it historically.”

The Court of Appeals ultimately found that Haenlein erred in giving the district attorney additional time after sentencing to file a motion for continuance, without any motion for an extension or proof that the prosecution did not already have a dollar amount. The panel also rejected Swanson’s argument that Martinez Rubiera’s guilty plea agreement separately authorized the prosecution to file the motion within 91 days.

“The plea agreement does not say what (the government claims) it says,” Lipinsky noted.

However, because Haenlein issued the order within 91 days, as required by law, the court found that Haenlein still had the authority to order compensation regardless of whether prosecutors withheld information at sentencing.

At the same time, the panel ordered a new restitution hearing. Defendants have a right to be present at the restitution hearing, and it was unclear whether Martinez Rubiera’s absence was a conscious decision not to attend.

The Supreme Court recently agreed to hear multiple appeals that could potentially undermine its three-year-old ruling in the case. Weeks.

The thing is this People against Martinez Rubier.