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

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-18.5-101 (2026)

Legislative declaration

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

(Repealed)

Source: L. 2000: Entire article added, p. 1030, § 1, effective September 1. L. 2002: Entire section repealed, p. 1463, § 3, effective October 1.

Editor's note: In 2002, this section was relocated to § 18-1.3-601.

Cross references: For the legislative declaration contained in the 2002 act repealing this section, see section 1 of chapter 318, Session Laws of Colorado 2002.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2002–2025 · leading case: Meza v. People, 2018 CO 23 (Colo. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Meza v. People, 2018 CO 23 (Colo. 2018). “1, §§ 16-18.5-101 to -110, 2000 Colo. Sess. Laws 1030 , 1030-41.”
Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Mills (In Re Mills), 290 B.R. 822 (Bankr.D. Colo. 2003). · cites it 10× “Colo.Rev.Stat. § 16-18.5-101 et seq., 7 by *835 its own terms is penal in nature and case law in Colorado has confirmed the same.”
People v. Brooks, 250 P.3d 771 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010). “2009 (formerly codified at sections 16-18.5-101 to -108 under ch. 232, see.”
People v. Lowe, 60 P.3d 753 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 3× “See § 16-18.5-101, C.R.S. 2001. Moreover, construing “delinquencies of orders” in Colo.”
People v. Carrillo, 70 P.3d 529 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002). “01CA1876, July 18, 2002)(authority of DOC to act under § 16-18.5-101, et seq., C.R.98.2002, adjudicated under motion to show cause).”
People v. Howell, 64 P.3d 894 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002). “See § 16-18.5-101(l)(c), (d), C.R.S.2001. The better practice is to impose the specific amount of costs on the date of sentencing.”
People v. Stovall, 75 P.3d 1165 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “2002 (formerly § 16-18.5-101(1)(b), (@). In § 18-1.3-601(1)(b), the General Assembly declared that persons found guilty of a crime "should be under a moral and legal obligation to make full restitution to those harmed by their misconduct.”
People v. Stafford, 93 P.3d 572 (Colo. Ct. App. 2004). “, and § 16-18.5-101, et seq., C.R.S.2003. Section 18-1.”
People v. Trujillo, 75 P.3d 1133 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003). “2002 (formerly § 16-18.5-101). Restitution is intended to make the victim whole and specifically includes repayment of actual pecuniary loss the victim sustained as the direct result of the defendant's criminal conduct.”
Audrey Lee Tennyson v. The People of the State of Colorado, 2025 CO 31 (Colo. 2025). “1, §§ 16-18.5-101 to -110, 2000 Colo. Sess. Laws 1030 , 1030-41).”
Shaun Jeff Snow v. The People of the State of Colorado, 2025 CO 32 (Colo. 2025). · cites it 6× “1, § 16-18.5-101, 2000 Colo. Sess. Laws 1030, 1030-31 (Section 16-18.”
People v. Reyes, 207 P.3d 872 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008). “In September 2000, the General Assembly enacted sections 16-18.5-101 to -110, C.R.S. 2008 (the Restitution Act).”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-18.5-101(1)(b) — 1 case
People v. Stovall, 75 P.3d 1165 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003). “2002 (formerly § 16-18.5-101(1)(b), (@). In § 18-1.3-601(1)(b), the General Assembly declared that persons found guilty of a crime "should be under a moral and legal obligation to make full restitution to those harmed by their misconduct.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-18.5-101(1)(c) — 1 case
People v. Stovall, 75 P.3d 1165 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003). “2002 (formerly § 16-18.5-101(1)(b), (@). In § 18-1.3-601(1)(b), the General Assembly declared that persons found guilty of a crime "should be under a moral and legal obligation to make full restitution to those harmed by their misconduct.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-18.5-101(l)(c) — 2 cases
People v. Howell, 64 P.3d 894 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002). “See § 16-18.5-101(l)(c), (d), C.R.S.2001. The better practice is to impose the specific amount of costs on the date of sentencing.”
Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Mills (In Re Mills), 290 B.R. 822 (Bankr.D. Colo. 2003). “Colo.Rev.Stat. § 16-18.5-101 et seq., 7 by *835 its own terms is penal in nature and case law in Colorado has confirmed the same.”
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.