Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-603 (2026)

Assessment of restitution - corrective orders

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

(1) Every order of conviction of a felony, misdemeanor, petty offense, or traffic misdemeanor offense, except any order of conviction for a state traffic misdemeanor offense issued by a municipal or county court in which the prosecuting attorney is acting as a special deputy district attorney pursuant to an agreement with the district attorney's office, shall include consideration of restitution. Each such order shall include one or more of the following:

(a) An order of a specific amount of restitution be paid by the defendant;

(b) An order that the defendant is obligated to pay restitution, but that the specific amount of restitution shall be determined within the ninety-one days immediately following the order of conviction, unless good cause is shown for extending the time period by which the restitution amount shall be determined;

(c) An order, in addition to or in place of a specific amount of restitution, that the defendant pay restitution covering the actual costs of specific future treatment of any victim of the crime; or

(d) Contain a specific finding that no victim of the crime suffered a pecuniary loss and therefore no order for the payment of restitution is being entered.

(2) (a) The court shall base its order for restitution upon information presented to the court by the prosecuting attorney, who shall compile such information through victim impact statements or other means to determine the amount of restitution and the identities of the victims. Further, the prosecuting attorney shall present this information to the court prior to the order of conviction or within ninety-one days, if it is not available prior to the order of conviction. The court may extend this date if it finds that there are extenuating circumstances affecting the prosecuting attorney's ability to determine restitution.

(b) In computing restitution pursuant to subsection (2)(a) of this section, the following expenses are allowable if proximately caused by the crime, including but not limited to:

(I) Long-term or ongoing medical expenses as a result of the crime for which the offender was convicted or of any conduct arising out of the case;

(II) Reimbursement for insurance deductibles, including deductibles for medical expenses for physical and mental health issues, property damage or loss, and automobile damage or loss;

(III) Replacement costs for damaged or destroyed property, including locks, windows, and doors;

(IV) Travel expenses to court hearings if the victim travels over one hundred miles one way from the location of the court proceeding or when the victim is away from home longer than one day, requiring an overnight stay. A victim may receive travel expenses for travel to critical stages of the case only for the critical stages described in section 24-4.1-302 (2)(b), (2)(e), (2)(f), (2)(g), and (2)(h).

(V) Travel expenses to a secure site, if required, to participate virtually in court proceedings;

(VI) Child care expenses while the victim participates in court proceedings; and

(VII) Reimbursement for lost wages to attend a critical stage of the case for the critical stages described in section 24-4.1-302 (2)(b), (2)(e), (2)(f), (2)(g), and (2)(h).

(c) The court shall review the travel expenses described in subsections (2)(b)(IV) and (2)(b)(V) of this section to ensure the travel expenses are reasonable. If the court finds the travel expenses are unreasonable, the court may reduce the amount of recoverable travel expenses to a reasonable amount.

(d) Notwithstanding the determination of restitution, an order of conviction is final.

(3) Any order for restitution may be:

(a) Increased if additional victims or additional losses not known to the judge or the prosecutor at the time the order of restitution was entered are later discovered and the final amount of restitution due has not been set by the court; or

(b) Decreased:

(I) With the consent of the prosecuting attorney and the victim or victims to whom the restitution is owed; or

(II) If the defendant has otherwise compensated the victim or victims for the pecuniary losses suffered.

(4) (a) (I) Any order for restitution entered pursuant to this section is a final civil judgment in favor of the state and any victim. Notwithstanding any other civil or criminal statute or rule, any such judgment remains in force until the restitution is paid in full. The provisions of article 18.5 of title 16, C.R.S., apply notwithstanding the termination of a deferred judgment and sentence or a deferred adjudication, the entry of an order of expungement pursuant to section 19- 1-306, C.R.S., or an order to seal entered pursuant to part 7 of article 72 of title 24, C.R.S.

(II) Notwithstanding the provisions of subparagraph (I) of this paragraph (a), two years after the presentation of the defendant's original death certificate to the clerk of the court or the court collections investigator, the court may terminate the remaining balance of the judgment and order for restitution if, following notice by the clerk of the court or the court collections investigator to the district attorney, the district attorney does not object and there is no evidence of a continuing source of income of the defendant to pay restitution. The termination of a judgment and order pursuant to this subparagraph (II) does not terminate an associated judgment against a defendant who is jointly and severally liable with the deceased defendant.

(b) Any order for restitution made pursuant to this section is also an order that:

(I) Except as provided in subsection (4)(b.5) of this section, the defendant owes simple interest from the date of the entry of the order at the rate of eight percent per annum; and

(II) The defendant owes all reasonable and necessary attorney fees and costs incurred in collecting such order due to the defendant's nonpayment. (b.5) (I) Interest on an order for restitution does not accrue while:

(A) The defendant is serving a sentence in a correctional facility operated by or under contract with the department of corrections located within the state; or

(B) The defendant is in a juvenile delinquency case and is under twenty-one years of age.

(II) In any case where interest was accruing on an order of restitution at the rate of twelve percent per annum, on and after January 1, 2020, interest accrues at the rate of eight percent per annum.

(c) The entry of an order for restitution under this section creates a lien by operation of law against the defendant's personal property and any interest that the defendant may have in any personal property.

(d) Any order of restitution imposed shall be considered a debt for "willful and malicious" injury for purposes of exceptions to discharge in bankruptcy as provided in 11 U.S.C. sec. 523.

(e) The clerk of the court is authorized to adjust the unpaid balance in the case upon proof that any restitution or related interest amounts have been or will be satisfied outside of the court registry and receipting process regardless of when the restitution order and judgment were entered. The accounting adjustment does not modify a court's order.

(5) If more than one defendant owes restitution to the same victim for the same pecuniary loss, the orders for restitution shall be joint and several obligations of the defendants.

(6) Any amount paid to a victim under an order of restitution shall be set off against any amount later recovered as compensatory damages by such victim in any federal or state civil proceeding.

(7) When a person's means of identification or financial information was used without that person's authorization in connection with a conviction for any crime in violation of part 2, 3, or 4 of article 4, part 1, 2, 3, or 7 of article 5, or article 5.5 of this title, the sentencing court may issue such orders as are necessary to correct a public record that contains false information resulting from any violation of such laws. In addition, the restitution order shall include any costs incurred by the victim related to section 16-5-103, C.R.S.

(8) (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, for a non-felony conviction under title 42, C.R.S., the court shall order restitution concerning only the portion of the victim's pecuniary loss for which the victim cannot be compensated under a policy of insurance, self-insurance, an indemnity agreement, or a risk management fund.

(b) The court, in determining the restitution amount, shall consider whether the defendant or the vehicle driven by the defendant at the time of the offense was covered by:

(I) A complying policy of insurance or certificate of self-insurance as required by the laws of this state;

(II) Self-insurance including but not limited to insurance coverage pursuant to the provisions of part 15 of article 30 of title 24, C.R.S.; or

(III) Any other insurance or indemnity agreement that would indemnify the defendant for any damages sustained by the victim.

(c) (I) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph (c), a court may not award restitution to a victim concerning a pecuniary loss for which the victim has received or is entitled to receive benefits or reimbursement under a policy of insurance or other indemnity agreement.

(II) (A) A court may award a victim restitution for a deductible amount under his or her policy of insurance.

(B) (Deleted by amendment, L. 2004, p. 904, § 28, effective May 21, 2004.)

(d) (I) (Deleted by amendment, L. 2004, p. 904, § 28, effective May 21, 2004.)

(II) Nothing in this paragraph (d) shall prohibit a nonowner driver or passenger in the vehicle from being awarded restitution if the driver or passenger was not covered by his or her own medical payments coverage policy.

(e) (I) Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, an insurance company, risk management fund, or public entity shall not be obligated to defend a defendant in a hearing concerning restitution. No court shall interpret an indemnity or insurance contract so as to obligate an insurance company, risk management fund, or public entity to defend a defendant at a restitution hearing absent a specific agreement.

(II) Notwithstanding any provision of law, indemnity contract, or insurance contract to the contrary, an insurance company, risk management fund, or public entity shall not be obligated to pay or otherwise satisfy a civil judgment entered pursuant to this part 6, or to indemnify a defendant for an amount awarded in a restitution order.

(f) Nothing in this article shall be construed to limit or abrogate the rights and immunities set forth in the "Colorado Governmental Immunity Act", article 10 of title 24, C.R.S.

(g) The provisions of this subsection (8) shall not preclude the court, pursuant to article 4.1 of title 24, C.R.S., from ordering restitution to reimburse an expenditure made by a victim compensation fund.

(9) For a conviction for human trafficking for involuntary servitude, as described in section 18-3-503, or for human trafficking for sexual servitude, as described in section 18-3-504, the court shall order restitution, if appropriate, pursuant to this section even if the victim is unavailable to accept payment of restitution.

(10) (a) If, as a result of the defendant's conduct, a crime victim compensation board has provided assistance to or on behalf of a victim pursuant to article 4.1 of title 24, C.R.S., the amount of assistance provided and requested by the crime victim compensation board is presumed to be a direct result of the defendant's criminal conduct and must be considered by the court in determining the amount of restitution ordered.

(b) The amount of assistance provided is established by either:

(I) A list of the amount of money paid to each provider; or

(II) If the identity or location of a provider would pose a threat to the safety or welfare of the victim, summary data reflecting what total payments were made for:

(A) Medical and dental expenses;

(B) Funeral or final disposition expenses;

(C) Mental health counseling;

(D) Wage or support losses; or

(E) Other expenses.

(c) Records of a crime victim compensation board relating to a claimed amount of restitution are subject to the provisions of section 24-4.1-107.5, C.R.S.

(11) Absent an agreement between the defendant and the prosecution at the time the plea is entered, a court may not impose restitution for pecuniary losses proximately caused by conduct exclusively related to dismissed charges.

Source: L. 2002: Entire article added with relocations, p. 1421, § 2, effective October 1. L. 2003: (8) added, p. 1048, § 1, effective September 1. L. 2004: (8)(c)(I), (8)(c)(II)(B), and

(8)(d) amended, p. 904, § 28, effective May 21. L. 2012: (1)(b) and (2) amended, (SB 12-175), ch. 208, p. 866, § 112, effective July 1. L. 2013: (7) amended, (HB 13-1146), ch. 43, p. 119, § 2, effective March 15. L. 2014: (4)(a) amended, (HB 14-1035), ch. 21, p. 152 , § 2, effective March 7; (9) added, (HB 14-1273), ch. 282, p. 1150, § 2, effective July 1. L. 2015: (10) added, (HB 15- 1035), ch. 60, p. 147, § 6, effective March 30. L. 2016: (4)(a), IP(4)(b), and (4)(b)(I) amended and (4)(e) added, (SB 16-065), ch. 277, p. 1142, § 1, effective July 1. L. 2019: (4)(b)(I) amended and (4)(b.5) added, (HB 19-1310), ch. 303, p. 2778, § 1, effective July 1. L. 2021: (10)(b)(II)(B) amended, (SB 21-006), ch. 123, p. 496, § 22, effective September 7; IP(1) amended, (SB 21- 271), ch. 462, p. 3171, § 189, effective March 1, 2022. L. 2022: IP(1) amended, (HB 22-1229), ch. 68, p. 344, § 19, effective March 1; (2) amended and (11) added, (SB 22-043), ch. 263, p. 1926, § 3, effective August 10. Editor's note: (1) This section is similar to former § 16-18.5-103 as it existed prior to 2002.

(2) Section 47 of chapter 68 (HB 22-1229), Session Laws of Colorado 2022, provides that the act amending IP(1) is effective March 1, 2022, but the governor did not approve the act until April 7, 2022.

Cross references: For the legislative declaration in SB 22-043, see section 1 of chapter 263, Session Laws of Colorado 2022.

PART 7

FINES AND COSTS

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 178 cases (116 in the last 5 years), 2003–2026 · leading case: The People of the State of Colorado v. Benjamin Weeks, 2021 CO 75 (Colo. 2021).
The People of the State of Colorado v. Benjamin Weeks, 2021 CO 75 (Colo. 2021). · cites it 37× “The problem is that it doesn't comport with the current restitution statute , section 18-1.3-603 , C.R.S. ( 2021 ) . In fairness to our colleagues litigating and presiding over criminal cases , section 18-1.”
v. Weeks, 2020 COA 44 (Colo. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 65× “Based on the plain language of section 18-1.3-603, C.R.S. 2019, the majority holds that courts must order restitution within ninety-one days or make a sufficient finding of “good cause” or “extenuating circumstances” to extend the statutory deadline.”
Pineda-Liberato v. People, 2017 CO 95 (Colo. 2017). · cites it 58× “” § 18-1.3-603, C.R.S. (2013). While a deferred judgment necessarily includes a conditional admission, subject to stipulated conditions, unless it was revoked according to the process statutorily required, it was not, and could never become, a conviction of any one of these…”
v. Gregory, 2019 COA 184 (Colo. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 22× “3-603(1), an order of conviction must contain: (a) an order specifying the amount of restitution; (b) an order that the defendant must pay restitution but that the specific amount is to be determined within ninety-one days from the order of conviction, or longer for good cause;…”
Meza v. People, 2018 CO 23 (Colo. 2018). · cites it 25× “5-103-now codified at section 18-1.3-603, C.R.S. (2017), see ch.”
People v. McLain, 2016 COA 74 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 21× “§ 18-1.3-603(1). If restitution is owed to a victim, the order of conviction must include the specific amount of restitution to be paid by the defendant or a requirement that the defendant pay an amount of restitution to be determined within ninety-one days of entry of the order…”
People v. Smith, 121 P.3d 243 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 20× “In 2004, we remanded the case to the trial court to determine five issues: (1) whether the original mittimus constituted a final appealable judgment, even though it did not reflect consideration of restitution; (2) whether the trial court had jurisdiction to enter the amended…”
The People of the State of Colorado v. Zachary Eugene Babcock, 2023 COA 49 (Colo. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 7× “Standard of Review and Applicable Law ¶ 3 This appeal calls for us to interpret the restitution statute, section 18-1.3-603, C.R.S. 2022. That presents a legal issue that we review de novo.”
People v. Alexander Ryan Fregosi, 547 P.3d 402 (Colo. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 41× “The order further stated, “Pursuant to C.R.S. § 18-1.3-603, in addition to the specific amount of restitution listed in this order, the defendant shall be required to pay the actual costs of specific future treatment of any victim of the crime, if applicable.”
People v. Lassek, 122 P.3d 1029 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 10× “Section 18-1.3-603(1), C.R.S.2004; People v.”
v. Martinez-Chavez, 2020 COA 39 (Colo. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 7× “6, § 18-1.3-603, 2015 Colo. Sess. Laws 147 ; People v.”
v. Knoeppchen, 2019 COA 34 (Colo. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 7× “§ 18-1.3-603(1), C.R.S. 2018. To discharge this duty, the district court must take one of four actions when issuing the order of conviction: (1) establish a 10 specific amount of restitution; (2) find that the defendant will be obligated to pay restitution, but reserve for…”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-603(1): 83 cases
v. Gregory, 2019 COA 184 (Colo. Ct. App. 2019). “3-603(1), an order of conviction must contain: (a) an order specifying the amount of restitution; (b) an order that the defendant must pay restitution but that the specific amount is to be determined within ninety-one days from the order of conviction, or longer for good cause;…”
People v. Smith, 121 P.3d 243 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005). “In 2004, we remanded the case to the trial court to determine five issues: (1) whether the original mittimus constituted a final appealable judgment, even though it did not reflect consideration of restitution; (2) whether the trial court had jurisdiction to enter the amended…”
Cowen v. People, 2018 CO 96 (Colo. 2018).
People v. Lassek, 122 P.3d 1029 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005). “Section 18-1.3-603(1), C.R.S.2004; People v.”
People v. Bowerman, 258 P.3d 314 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010).
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-603(1)(a): 21 cases
Meza v. People, 2018 CO 23 (Colo. 2018). “5-103-now codified at section 18-1.3-603, C.R.S. (2017), see ch.”
People v. McLain, 2016 COA 74 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016). “§ 18-1.3-603(1). If restitution is owed to a victim, the order of conviction must include the specific amount of restitution to be paid by the defendant or a requirement that the defendant pay an amount of restitution to be determined within ninety-one days of entry of the order…”
People v. Belibi, 2018 CO 24 (Colo. 2018).
People v. McLain, 411 P.3d 1037 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016).
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-603(1)(b): 76 cases
v. Weeks, 2020 COA 44 (Colo. Ct. App. 2020). “Based on the plain language of section 18-1.3-603, C.R.S. 2019, the majority holds that courts must order restitution within ninety-one days or make a sufficient finding of “good cause” or “extenuating circumstances” to extend the statutory deadline.”
The People of the State of Colorado v. Tommy Rae Mickey, 2023 COA 106 (Colo. Ct. App. 2023).
The People of the State of Colorado v. Zachary Eugene Babcock, 2023 COA 49 (Colo. Ct. App. 2023). “Standard of Review and Applicable Law ¶ 3 This appeal calls for us to interpret the restitution statute, section 18-1.3-603, C.R.S. 2022. That presents a legal issue that we review de novo.”
v. Knoeppchen, 2019 COA 34 (Colo. Ct. App. 2019). “§ 18-1.3-603(1), C.R.S. 2018. To discharge this duty, the district court must take one of four actions when issuing the order of conviction: (1) establish a 10 specific amount of restitution; (2) find that the defendant will be obligated to pay restitution, but reserve for…”
People v. McLain, 2016 COA 74 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016). “§ 18-1.3-603(1). If restitution is owed to a victim, the order of conviction must include the specific amount of restitution to be paid by the defendant or a requirement that the defendant pay an amount of restitution to be determined within ninety-one days of entry of the order…”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-603(1)(c): 11 cases
Meza v. People, 2018 CO 23 (Colo. 2018). “5-103-now codified at section 18-1.3-603, C.R.S. (2017), see ch.”
People v. Alexander Ryan Fregosi, 547 P.3d 402 (Colo. Ct. App. 2024). “The order further stated, “Pursuant to C.R.S. § 18-1.3-603, in addition to the specific amount of restitution listed in this order, the defendant shall be required to pay the actual costs of specific future treatment of any victim of the crime, if applicable.”
Peo v. Quezada (Colo. Ct. App. 2025).
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-603(1)(d): 11 cases
v. Weeks, 2020 COA 44 (Colo. Ct. App. 2020). “Based on the plain language of section 18-1.3-603, C.R.S. 2019, the majority holds that courts must order restitution within ninety-one days or make a sufficient finding of “good cause” or “extenuating circumstances” to extend the statutory deadline.”
Meza v. People, 2018 CO 23 (Colo. 2018). “5-103-now codified at section 18-1.3-603, C.R.S. (2017), see ch.”
People v. Nelson, 2015 CO 68 (Colo. 2015).
People v. Stovall, 75 P.3d 1165 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003).
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-603(10): 8 cases
v. Martinez-Chavez, 2020 COA 39 (Colo. Ct. App. 2020). “6, § 18-1.3-603, 2015 Colo. Sess. Laws 147 ; People v.”
v. Hernandez, 2019 COA 111 (Colo. Ct. App. 2019).
People v. Casey Simms (Colo. Ct. App. 2026).
People v. Henry, 439 P.3d 33 (Colo. Ct. App. 2018).
Peo in Interest of ZJ (Colo. Ct. App. 2024).
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-603(10)(a): 15 cases
v. Martinez-Chavez, 2020 COA 39 (Colo. Ct. App. 2020). “6, § 18-1.3-603, 2015 Colo. Sess. Laws 147 ; People v.”
People v. Alexander Ryan Fregosi, 547 P.3d 402 (Colo. Ct. App. 2024). “The order further stated, “Pursuant to C.R.S. § 18-1.3-603, in addition to the specific amount of restitution listed in this order, the defendant shall be required to pay the actual costs of specific future treatment of any victim of the crime, if applicable.”
Peo v. Stone, 2020 COA 24 (Colo. Ct. App. 2020).
People v. Henry, 439 P.3d 33 (Colo. Ct. App. 2018).
Peo v. Mullins (Colo. Ct. App. 2025).
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-603(10)(b): 6 cases
Peo v. Cummings (Colo. Ct. App. 2026).
People v. Casey Simms (Colo. Ct. App. 2026).
Peo in Interest of GCI (Colo. Ct. App. 2022).
Peo in Interest of ZJ (Colo. Ct. App. 2024).
Peo in Interest of ZJ (Colo. Ct. App. 2024).
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-603(10)(b)(I): 6 cases
People v. Alexander Ryan Fregosi, 547 P.3d 402 (Colo. Ct. App. 2024). “The order further stated, “Pursuant to C.R.S. § 18-1.3-603, in addition to the specific amount of restitution listed in this order, the defendant shall be required to pay the actual costs of specific future treatment of any victim of the crime, if applicable.”
People v. Henry, 439 P.3d 33 (Colo. Ct. App. 2018).
Peo v. Bailey (Colo. Ct. App. 2025).
Peo v. Rafaela-Ramirez (Colo. Ct. App. 2025).
Peo in Interest of APR (Colo. Ct. App. 2026).
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-603(10)(b)(II): 3 cases
Peo v. Halbrooks (Colo. Ct. App. 2025).
Peo v. Rafaela-Ramirez (Colo. Ct. App. 2025).
Peo v. Bailey (Colo. Ct. App. 2025).
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-603(10)(c): 2 cases
People v. Henry, 439 P.3d 33 (Colo. Ct. App. 2018).
Peo v. Mullins (Colo. Ct. App. 2025).
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-603(11): 7 cases
Peo v. Claypoole (Colo. Ct. App. 2025).
Peo v. Brentner (Colo. Ct. App. 2025).
Peo v. Nunez-Guardado (Colo. Ct. App. 2025).
Peo v. Rodriguez (Colo. Ct. App. 2025).
Peo v. Olson (Colo. Ct. App. 2025).
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-603(2): 28 cases
v. Weeks, 2020 COA 44 (Colo. Ct. App. 2020). “Based on the plain language of section 18-1.3-603, C.R.S. 2019, the majority holds that courts must order restitution within ninety-one days or make a sufficient finding of “good cause” or “extenuating circumstances” to extend the statutory deadline.”
Meza v. People, 2018 CO 23 (Colo. 2018). “5-103-now codified at section 18-1.3-603, C.R.S. (2017), see ch.”
v. Barbre, 2018 COA 123 (Colo. Ct. App. 2018).
People v. Ortiz, 2016 COA 58 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016).
v. Roddy, 2020 COA 72 (Colo. Ct. App. 2020).
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-603(2)(a): 31 cases
People v. Alexander Ryan Fregosi, 547 P.3d 402 (Colo. Ct. App. 2024). “The order further stated, “Pursuant to C.R.S. § 18-1.3-603, in addition to the specific amount of restitution listed in this order, the defendant shall be required to pay the actual costs of specific future treatment of any victim of the crime, if applicable.”
Peo v. Kinard (Colo. Ct. App. 2024).
Peo v. Kinard (Colo. Ct. App. 2024).
Peo v. Medina (Colo. Ct. App. 2024).
Peo v. Pope (Colo. Ct. App. 2026).
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-603(2)(b)(I): 1 case
Peo v. Novak (Colo. Ct. App. 2026).
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-603(2)(b)(II): 1 case
People v. Marceleno (Colo. Ct. App. 2026).
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-603(3): 8 cases
People v. McLain, 2016 COA 74 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016). “§ 18-1.3-603(1). If restitution is owed to a victim, the order of conviction must include the specific amount of restitution to be paid by the defendant or a requirement that the defendant pay an amount of restitution to be determined within ninety-one days of entry of the order…”
v. Gregory, 2019 COA 184 (Colo. Ct. App. 2019). “3-603(1), an order of conviction must contain: (a) an order specifying the amount of restitution; (b) an order that the defendant must pay restitution but that the specific amount is to be determined within ninety-one days from the order of conviction, or longer for good cause;…”
People v. Rockne, 315 P.3d 172 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012).
People v. McLain, 411 P.3d 1037 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016).
People v. Nelson, 2015 CO 68 (Colo. 2015).
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-603(3)(a): 9 cases
People v. McLain, 2016 COA 74 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016). “§ 18-1.3-603(1). If restitution is owed to a victim, the order of conviction must include the specific amount of restitution to be paid by the defendant or a requirement that the defendant pay an amount of restitution to be determined within ninety-one days of entry of the order…”
v. Gregory, 2019 COA 184 (Colo. Ct. App. 2019). “3-603(1), an order of conviction must contain: (a) an order specifying the amount of restitution; (b) an order that the defendant must pay restitution but that the specific amount is to be determined within ninety-one days from the order of conviction, or longer for good cause;…”
Meza v. People, 2018 CO 23 (Colo. 2018). “5-103-now codified at section 18-1.3-603, C.R.S. (2017), see ch.”
People v. Rockne, 315 P.3d 172 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012).
People v. McLain, 411 P.3d 1037 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016).
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-603(3)(b): 4 cases
Peo v. Rodriguez (Colo. Ct. App. 2025).
Peo v. Hurtado (Colo. Ct. App. 2026).
Peo v. Rodriguez (Colo. Ct. App. 2025).
Peo v. Jacobson (Colo. Ct. App. 2025).
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-603(3)(b)(II): 10 cases
v. Gregory, 2019 COA 184 (Colo. Ct. App. 2019). “3-603(1), an order of conviction must contain: (a) an order specifying the amount of restitution; (b) an order that the defendant must pay restitution but that the specific amount is to be determined within ninety-one days from the order of conviction, or longer for good cause;…”
People v. Lassek, 122 P.3d 1029 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005). “Section 18-1.3-603(1), C.R.S.2004; People v.”
People v. Madison, 2018 COA 62 (Colo. Ct. App. 2018).
Peo v. Jacobson (Colo. Ct. App. 2025).
Peo v. Smith (Colo. Ct. App. 2024).
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-603(3)(d): 1 case
Peo v. Hurtado (Colo. Ct. App. 2026).
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-603(4): 5 cases
Pineda-Liberato v. People, 2017 CO 95 (Colo. 2017). “” § 18-1.3-603, C.R.S. (2013). While a deferred judgment necessarily includes a conditional admission, subject to stipulated conditions, unless it was revoked according to the process statutorily required, it was not, and could never become, a conviction of any one of these…”
Roberts v. People, 130 P.3d 1005 (Colo. 2006).
Peo v. Brooks (Colo. Ct. App. 2025).
Peo in Interest of B.H, 2021 COA 86 (Colo. Ct. App. 2021).
Peo v. Hurtado (Colo. Ct. App. 2026).
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-603(4)(a): 8 cases
Pineda-Liberato v. People, 2017 CO 95 (Colo. 2017). “” § 18-1.3-603, C.R.S. (2013). While a deferred judgment necessarily includes a conditional admission, subject to stipulated conditions, unless it was revoked according to the process statutorily required, it was not, and could never become, a conviction of any one of these…”
People v. Nelson, 2015 CO 68 (Colo. 2015).
People v. Daly, 313 P.3d 571 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011).
Roberts v. People, 130 P.3d 1005 (Colo. 2006).
v. Johnson, 2020 COA 124 (Colo. Ct. App. 2020).
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-603(4)(a)(1): 1 case
People v. Madison, 2018 COA 62 (Colo. Ct. App. 2018).
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-603(4)(a)(I): 5 cases
The People of the State of Colorado v. Tommy Rae Mickey, 2023 COA 106 (Colo. Ct. App. 2023).
v. Johnson, 2020 COA 124 (Colo. Ct. App. 2020).
v. Roddy, 2020 COA 72 (Colo. Ct. App. 2020).
The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado v. Tommy Rae MICKEY, 543 P.3d 430 (Colo. Ct. App. 2024).
People v. Alicia Andrea Martinez (Colo. Ct. App. 2022).
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-603(4)(b): 1 case
People v. In the Interest of J.C, 2018 COA 22 (Colo. Ct. App. 2018).
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-603(4)(b)(I): 7 cases
v. Barbre, 2018 COA 123 (Colo. Ct. App. 2018).
Roberts v. People, 130 P.3d 1005 (Colo. 2006).
Peo in Interest of A.N, 2019 COA 67 (Colo. Ct. App. 2019).
People v. Cardenas, 262 P.3d 913 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011).
v. Ray, 2018 COA 158 (Colo. Ct. App. 2018).
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-603(4)(c): 1 case
People v. Daly, 313 P.3d 571 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011).
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-603(4)(d): 2 cases
Roberts v. People, 130 P.3d 1005 (Colo. 2006).
People v. Foos, 2016 COA 139 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016).
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-603(5): 2 cases
People in the Interest of D.I, 2015 COA 136 (Colo. Ct. App. 2015).
People in the Interest of D.I, 2015 COA 136 (Colo. Ct. App. 2015).
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-603(6): 6 cases
v. Gregory, 2019 COA 184 (Colo. Ct. App. 2019). “3-603(1), an order of conviction must contain: (a) an order specifying the amount of restitution; (b) an order that the defendant must pay restitution but that the specific amount is to be determined within ninety-one days from the order of conviction, or longer for good cause;…”
People v. Lassek, 122 P.3d 1029 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005). “Section 18-1.3-603(1), C.R.S.2004; People v.”
Peo v. Burgess (Colo. Ct. App. 2024).
Peo v. Burgess (Colo. Ct. App. 2024).
Peo v. Teague (Colo. Ct. App. 2025).
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-603(8): 1 case
People v. Marceleno (Colo. Ct. App. 2026).
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-603(8)(a): 2 cases
Meza v. People, 2018 CO 23 (Colo. 2018). “5-103-now codified at section 18-1.3-603, C.R.S. (2017), see ch.”
People v. Marceleno (Colo. Ct. App. 2026).
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-603(8)(b): 2 cases
Johnson v. People, 2016 CO 59 (Colo. 2016).
People v. Marceleno (Colo. Ct. App. 2026).
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-603(8)(c)(I): 2 cases
Peo v. Eddington (Colo. Ct. App. 2026).
People v. Marceleno (Colo. Ct. App. 2026).
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-603(8)(c)(II)(A): 1 case
People v. Marceleno (Colo. Ct. App. 2026).
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-603(8)(c)(II)(B): 1 case
People v. Marceleno (Colo. Ct. App. 2026).
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-603(8)(d): 1 case
People v. Marceleno (Colo. Ct. App. 2026).
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-603(8)(d)(II): 1 case
People v. Marceleno (Colo. Ct. App. 2026).
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-603(b)(II)(c): 1 case
People v. Madison, 2018 COA 62 (Colo. Ct. App. 2018).
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-603(i): 1 case
People v. Rockne, 315 P.3d 172 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012).
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-603(l): 1 case
People v. Harman, 97 P.3d 290 (Colo. Ct. App. 2004).
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-603(l)(a): 1 case
People v. McCann, 122 P.3d 1085 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005).
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-603(l)(b): 3 cases
People v. McCann, 122 P.3d 1085 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005).
People v. Harman, 97 P.3d 290 (Colo. Ct. App. 2004).
Peo v. Ramirez (Colo. Ct. App. 2024).
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.