The Colorado Supreme Court on Monday announced that it has vacated a decision of the Colorado Court of Appeals and ordered the appellate court to review whether prosecutors were appropriately granted an extension in asking for restitution from a criminal defendant.

Rafael Perez hosted a wedding at his ranch in June 2012, when an argument broke out. Multiple men began assaulting a wedding guest and Perez broke a bottle on the guest’s face. The man had to go to the hospital for his injuries.

Perez received a conviction for assault with a deadly weapon and a sentence of five years in prison. The trial court held off on making a decision about restitution for 90 days. On the ninety-fourth day, the prosecution asked for an extension to process “complex” medical bills, lost wages, and ongoing medical claims. Perez did not object to the request. Almost one year after the conviction, the court ordered Perez pay restitution of just under $20,000.

Perez then sued, citing neither good-cause reason for an extension of the restitution decision beyond 90 days nor extenuating circumstances that should have given the prosecution more time. Despite not raising the issue at the time, Perez, the Colorado Court of Appeals said, did not relinquish his right to appeal the decision. State statute requires there to be extenuating circumstances to grant an extension, which did not exist in Perez’s case.

“Because the court made no such finding explicitly, the court erred,” wrote appeals Judge Ted C. Tow, III. However, the appellate court did not order Perez’s restitution reversed because the actual complexity of the bills “does not cast doubt on the reliability of the restitution order.” Based on the concept of “plain error,” the trial court’s actions did not undermine the reliability of the conviction.

The case is The People of the State of Colorado v. Rafael Perez.

The Supreme Court ordered Perez’s case be reevaluated in light of the justices’ 2019 decision in Michael Alan Fransua v. The People of the State of Colorado. The court ruled in that case that a defendant could appeal the amount of credit he was given for time spent in jail before conviction. An appeals court did not have to only look for plain error that would have caused a clear reversal of the sentencing decision.

The Supreme Court’s direction in the Perez case asks the appellate court to go beyond the plain error standard in evaluating his claim because he had a right to raise it when he did.

This story has been updated to correct the name of the appellate judge who authored the opinion.