Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 16
Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-18-101 (2026)

Costs in criminal cases

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) The costs in criminal cases shall be paid by the state pursuant to section 13-3-104, C.R.S., when the defendant is acquitted or when the defendant is convicted and the court determines he is unable to pay them.

(2) The costs of preliminary hearings, including any reporters' transcripts thereof ordered by a defendant, shall be paid pursuant to subsection (1) of this section. Reporters' transcripts of preliminary hearings which are ordered by the prosecution shall be paid for by the prosecution, unless otherwise ordered by the court.

(3) The department of corrections, from annual appropriations made by the general assembly, shall reimburse the county or counties in a judicial district for the costs of prosecuting any crime alleged to have been committed by a person in the custody of the department. The county or counties shall certify these costs to the department, and upon approval of the executive director of the department, the costs shall be paid. The provisions of this subsection (3) shall apply to costs that are not otherwise paid by the state. Source: L. 1876: p. 53, § 1. G.L. § 349. G.S. § 422. L. 1889: p. 99, § 1. R.S. 08: § 1077. C.L. § 6593. CSA: C. 43, § 23. CRS 53: § 33-2-1. L. 59: p. 342, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 33-2-1. L. 71: p. 319, § 1. L. 77: (3) amended, p. 903, § 9, effective August 1. L. 79: (2) amended, p. 601, § 28, effective July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 32 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1975–2026 · leading case: People v. Perez, 201 P.3d 1220 (Colo. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Perez, 201 P.3d 1220 (Colo. 2009). · cites it 33× “Finally, the court concluded that the funding arrangement between the District Attorney's Office and the Department of Corrections, under which the Office directly billed the department for costs associated with prosecuting Perez, violated section 16-18-101(3), C.R.S. (2008).…”
People v. Nelson, 2015 CO 68 (Colo. 2015). · cites it 10× “§ 16-18-101(1), C.R.S. (2015). Because Nelson paid only a portion of what she was originally ordered to pay, the money was credited only to the victim compensation fund, the VAST fund, and toward restitution.”
People v. Harris, 43 P.3d 221 (Colo. 2002). · cites it 2× “(1998) and with seven counts of habitual eriminal based on prior felony property crimes, in violation of section 16-18-101, 6 C.R.S. (1998). An element of the sexual assault offense charged in this case is the use of force or violence.”
. People v. Trujillo, 2018 COA 12 (Colo. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 3× “Applicable Law ¶ 63 Under section 16-18-101(1), C.R.S. 2017, the state bears the costs of prosecution when a defendant is acquitted.”
People v. Clouse, 74 P.3d 336 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002). “200, § 16-18-101(2) at 948; and (8) the statutorily authorized sentence is unconstitutional in that it is disproportionately harsh for the crimes he committed.”
People v. Deroulet, 48 P.3d 520 (Colo. 2002). “Compare § 16-18-101, 8A CRS.: (Supp.1998) with § 16-13-101, 8A C.”
People v. J.J.H., 17 P.3d 159 (Colo. 2001). · cites it 2× “§ 16-18-101(1), (1.5). Sections 16-18-101(1) and (1.”
Copeland v. People, 2 P.3d 1283 (Colo. 2000). · cites it 2× “In addition, the court found Copeland guilty of six habitual criminal counts under section 16-18-101, 6 C.R.S. (1996), and sentenced him to twenty-four years on each of the first two counts, the sentences to run concurrently.”
People v. Lowe, 60 P.3d 753 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 3× “the executive director of the department of corrections ... may fix the time and manner of payment of restitution and may direct that a portion of the deposits into such inmate’s bank account be applied to any unpaid restitution.”
People v. Valdez, 56 P.3d 1148 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “The applicable provisions of the habitual criminal statute, § 16-18-101(1.5), (2), C.R.S. 2001, provide, in pertinent part, as follows: (1.”
People v. Perez, 238 P.3d 665 (Colo. 2010). · cites it 3× “The court noted that, pursuant to section 16-18-101, C.R.S. (2009), the Department of Corrections should have paid these funds to the counties comprising the Eighteenth Judicial District *669 directly, rather than to the District Attorney's Office.”
People v. Marquez, 983 P.2d 159 (Colo. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 6× “, or a class 1 felony, and persons sentenced as habitual criminals pursuant to section 16-18-101, C.R.S. Parole for persons sentenced for conviction of a class 2, class 3, class 4, or class 5 felony committed on or after July 1, 1979, shall be as .”
Show all 32 citing cases →
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-18-101(1) — 9 cases
People v. Nelson, 2015 CO 68 (Colo. 2015). “§ 16-18-101(1), C.R.S. (2015). Because Nelson paid only a portion of what she was originally ordered to pay, the money was credited only to the victim compensation fund, the VAST fund, and toward restitution.”
. People v. Trujillo, 2018 COA 12 (Colo. Ct. App. 2018). “Applicable Law ¶ 63 Under section 16-18-101(1), C.R.S. 2017, the state bears the costs of prosecution when a defendant is acquitted.”
People v. J.J.H., 17 P.3d 159 (Colo. 2001). “§ 16-18-101(1), (1.5). Sections 16-18-101(1) and (1.”
People v. Nelson, 369 P.3d 625 (Colo. Ct. App. 2013).
People v. Young, 923 P.2d 145 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-18-101(2) — 6 cases
People v. Clouse, 74 P.3d 336 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002). “200, § 16-18-101(2) at 948; and (8) the statutorily authorized sentence is unconstitutional in that it is disproportionately harsh for the crimes he committed.”
Outlaw v. People, 17 P.3d 150 (Colo. 2001).
People v. Mata, 56 P.3d 1169 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002).
People v. Johnson, 74 P.3d 349 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002).
People v. Martinez, 18 P.3d 831 (Colo. Ct. App. 2000).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-18-101(3) — 1 case
People v. Perez, 201 P.3d 1220 (Colo. 2009). “Finally, the court concluded that the funding arrangement between the District Attorney's Office and the Department of Corrections, under which the Office directly billed the department for costs associated with prosecuting Perez, violated section 16-18-101(3), C.R.S. (2008).…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-18-101(8) — 1 case
People v. Perez, 201 P.3d 1220 (Colo. 2009). “Finally, the court concluded that the funding arrangement between the District Attorney's Office and the Department of Corrections, under which the Office directly billed the department for costs associated with prosecuting Perez, violated section 16-18-101(3), C.R.S. (2008).…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-18-101(l)(g)(I) — 1 case
People v. Lowe, 60 P.3d 753 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002). “the executive director of the department of corrections ... may fix the time and manner of payment of restitution and may direct that a portion of the deposits into such inmate’s bank account be applied to any unpaid restitution.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.