People v. Romero, Jr., 559 P.2d 1101 (Colo. 1976). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Romero, Jr., 559 P.2d 1101 (Colo. 1976). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
44 citation events (27 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Peo v. Frasier (coloctapp, 2026-05-21)
Treatment trajectory · 1978 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1978 2002 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Peo v. Frasier (2×)
Colo. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
These protections would have little meaning if, for example, courts could revoke a DJS because a defendant could pay some amount of restitution at the 3 Relying on People v. Romero, 559 P.2d 1101, 1102 (Colo. 1976), a division of this court held that ability to pay is measured “at the time of the revocation hearing.” People v. Roletto, 2015 COA 41, ¶ 10 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gutierrez, Maricela Rodriguez
Tex. Crim. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
Ct. App. 2012) (trial court abused its discretion by revoking defendant's probation for reasons beyond his control; defendant demonstrated that he was unable to obtain suitable housing before his release from jail); see also United States v. Boswell , 605 F.2d 171, 173-75 (5th Cir. 1979) (failure to make restitution payments); United States v. Taylor , 321 F.2d 339, 340-41 (4th Cir. 1963) (failure to pay fines); People v. Romero , 559 P.2d 1101, 1101-02 (Colo. 1976) (failure to pay attorney's fees); People v. Silcott , 494 P.2d 835, 836-37 (Colo. 1972) (failure to make child-support payments);…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gutierrez, Maricela Rodriguez
Tex. Crim. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
See, e.g., People v. Cervantes, 175 Cal. App.4th 291, 295 , 95 Cal.Rptr.3d 858 (Cal.Ct.App.2009) ("Where a probationer is unable to comply with a probation condition because of circumstances beyond his or her control and defendant's conduct was not contumacious, revoking probation and imposing a prison term are reversible error.”); State v. Askew, 727 S.E.2d 905, 908 (N.C.Ct.App. 2012) (trial court abused its discretion by revoking defendant's probation for reasons beyond his control; defendant demonstrated that he was unable to obtain suitable housing before his release from jail); see also…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gutierrez, Maricela Rodriguez
Tex. Crim. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
Ct. App. 2012) (trial court abused its discretion by revoking defendant’s probation for reasons beyond his control; defendant demonstrated that he was unable to obtain suitable housing before his release from jail); see also United States v. Boswell, 605 F.2d 171, 173-75 (5th Cir. 1979) (failure to make restitution payments); United States v. Taylor, 321 F.2d 339, 340-41 (4th Cir. 1963) (failure to pay fines); People v. Romero, 559 P.2d 1101, 1101-02 (Colo. 1976) (failure to pay attorney’s fees); People v. Silcott, 494 P.2d 835, 836-37 (Colo. 1972) (failure to make child- support payments)…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Erickson v. District Court of the State of Colorado (In Re Erickson)
Bankr.D. Colo. · 1989 · confidence medium
See, People of the State of Colorado v. Gore, 774 P.2d 877 , (Colo.1989); People of the State of Colorado v. Afentul, 773 P.2d 1081 , (Colo.1989); Strickland v. People of the State of Colorado, 197 Colo. 488 , 594 P.2d 578, 579 (1979); and People of the State of Colorado v. Romero, 192 Colo. 106 , 559 P.2d 1101, 1102 (1976).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Gore
Colo. · 1989 · confidence medium
The court shall fix the manner and time of performance.... (2) If the defendant fails to pay the restitution, he shall be returned to the sentencing court which, upon proof of failure to pay, may: (a) Modify the amount of the restitution; (b) Extend the period of probation; (c) Order the defendant committed to jail with work release privileges; or (d) Revoke probation and impose the sentence otherwise required by law. (3) When, as a result of a plea bargain agreement, a defendant is ordered to make restitution pursuant to subsection (1) of this section, the department or agency supervising the…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Vázquez v. Caraballo
prsupreme · 1983 · confidence medium
Véanse: United States v. Barrington, 662 F.2d 1046, 1055 (4th Cir. 1981); United States v. Boswell, 605 F.2d 171, 174 (5th Cir. 1979); United States v. Wilson, 469 F.2d 368, 370 (2nd Cir. 1972); United States v. Taylor, 321 F.2d 339, 341-342 (4th Cir. 1963); People v. Romero, 559 P.2d 1101, 1102 (1976); Cephas v. State, 412 So. 2d 935 (1982); State v. Huggett, 525 P.2d 1119, 1124 (1974); People v. Bullard, 367 N.E.2d 1017, 1019 (1977); People v. Ford, 301 N.W.2d 831 (1981).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Humphrey v. State (2×)
Md. · 1981 · confidence medium
E.g., United States v. Boswell, 605 F.2d 171, 173-75 (5th Cir.1979) (failure to make restitution); United States v. Taylor, 321 F.2d 339, 340-41 (4th Cir.1963) (failure to pay fines); People v. Romero, 192 Colo. 106, 107-08 , 559 P.2d 1101, 1101-02 (1976) (failure to make payment for attorney's fees); People v. Silcott, 177 Colo. 451, 452-54 , 494 P.2d 835, 836-37 (1972) (failure to make child support payments); Donneil v. State, 377 So.2d 805, 805 (Fla. App. 1979) (failure to complete drug rehabilitation program); State v. Nakamura, 59 Haw. 378, 380-83 , 581 P.2d 759, 761-63 (1978) (failure t…
examined Cited "see" People v. Roletto (7×)
Colo. Ct. App. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See People v. Shifrin, 2014 COA 14, ¶ 130 , 342 P.3d 506 . ¶ 10 In People v. Romero, 192 Colo. 106, 108 , 559 P.2d 1101, 1102 (1976), the Colorado Supreme Court stated that, before revoking probation based on a failure to pay restitution, a court must make a finding that a probationer has the present ability to pay the ordered restitution, as measured at the time of the revocation hearing.
discussed Cited "see" People v. Conner (2×)
Colo. Ct. App. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See People v. Romero, 192 Colo. 106, 559 P.2d 1101 (1976); see also People v. Gore, 774 P.2d 877 (Colo.1989) (failure to make restitution payments does not automatically result in the revocation of probation).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of Colorado
v.
Nick Fermine Romero, Jr.
27097.
Supreme Court of Colorado.
Nov 15, 1976.
559 P.2d 1101
1976 Colo. LEXIS 672
J. D. MacFarlane, Attorney General, Jean E. Dubofsky, Deputy, Edward G. Donovan, Solicitor General, James S. Russell, Assistant, for plaintiff-appellee. Rollie R. Rogers, State Public Defender, James F. Dumas, Jr., Chief Deputy, T. Michael Dutton, Deputy, for defendant-appellant. Page 107
Kelley.
Cited by 17 opinions  |  Published
MR. JUSTICE KELLEY

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Defendant appeals an order of the Otero County District Court revoking his probation.

Defendant was charged with theft of material valued at $100 or more, 1971 Perm. Supp., C.R.S. 1963, 40-4-401. [1] At a pretrial hearing on May 7, 1974, the trial court was advised by the public defender that, pursuant to a Colorado Supreme Court directive concerning indigency guidelines for public defenders, defendant would be required to pay $165 in costs in order to be represented by the public defender.

On May 15, 1974, the court appointed a public defender and directed defendant to pay the $165 costs to the clerk of the court in monthly installments of $25.

Defendant pleaded guilty to the information. After imposing an indeterminate sentence in the state reformatory, the court suspended the sentence and granted defendant probation. At this point, defendant had paid one monthly installment. One of the conditions in the terms of probation was:

“(9) The Defendant shall make payments to the Clerk of this Court in the amount of $140.00 for attorney fees to be paid as follows: $25.00 on or before August 19, 1974, and a like sum on or before the 19th of each month until paid in full.”

Although defendant made the August payment, he failed to make the September payment, and his probation officer filed a petition for revocation of probation. A criminal summons was issued, and the court held a full hearing on the matter. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court took judicial notice that there were jobs available in the La Junta-Rocky Ford area. From this assumed fact, the judge concluded that defendant was not truthful when he testified that he made repeated attempts to obtain employment. The court revoked defendant’s probation based upon its written findings that defendant did not pay, nor did he make any reasonable effort to pay, the $25 due on September 19, 1974, under the conditions of probation. The court further found that it had complied “with the requirements of C.R.S. 39-1 1-204(1)(e) [i/c] [2] by fixing an amount the defendant could and would be able to pay . . . .” Defendant appeals the revocation, and we now vacate the order of revocation and remand for further proceedings.

[*108] In People v. Silcott, 177 Colo. 451, 494 P.2d 835 (1972), this court in a similar situation held that before revoking probation it is necessary for the court to make a finding of present ability to pay.

The trial court here made a finding that, at the time conditions for probation were set, defendant “could and would be able to pay.” However, it failed to make a finding of defendant’s ability to make the payments as of the time of the revocation hearing.

The Silcott requirement that one have the present ability to pay contemplates that (1) a job for which the probationer is qualified is available; (2) the job would produce an income adequate to meet his obligations; and (3) the probationer unjustifiably refuses to take it. Cf. Rapson v. Rapson, 165 Colo. 188, 437 P.2d 780 (1968).

Since we are deciding the issue on the basis that the district court failed to make the essential findings as to defendant’s present ability to pay, we elect not to reach the other assignments of error at this time.

The order of revocation is vacated. We retain jurisdiction, but remand to the district court for further proceedings. In the event the court finds that the defendant had the ability to pay as defined above at the time of the revocation hearing, the cause shall be returned to this court for resolution of the other issues raised by the defendant. If the court finds that the defendant did not have the ability to pay at the time of the revocation hearing, it shall reinstate defendant’s probation and shall certify this fact to this court, whereupon the appeal shall be dismissed.

MR. JUSTICE ERICKSON concurs in result only.

1

Now section 18-4-401, C.R.S. 1973.

2

The court was in actuality referring to section 16-1 1-204(2)(e), C.R.S. 1973.