A trial court need only show there is a good cause to overrun the time deadline for setting a defendant’s restitution, and not explicitly prove that such cause exists, the Court of Appeals decided on Thursday.

Brian Allen Rice pleaded guilty to aggravated motor vehicle theft through unlawful display of license plates in August 2018, with Pueblo County District Court Judge Thomas B. Flesher issuing a nearly $3,057 restitution order 99 days after Rice’s sentencing. Colorado law requires restitution orders determining the amount to be repaid to occur no later than 91 days from sentencing.

However, the statute allow for a trial court to extend the deadline by showing “good cause.”

In March of this year, the majority of a different appeals panel overturned a restitution order in a similar case upon finding that no reason existed for an 11-month delay for a $524.19 restitution order. However, in contrast to that decision, the judges in Rice’s case believed the standard for extending the deadline was not whether good cause actually “existed,” but rather if it was merely “shown.”

“With that said, we underscore the requirement that implied good cause must be shown or demonstrated in the record for us to uphold a district court’s tardy restitution order,” wrote Judge Sueanna P. Johnson for the three-member Rice panel. 

The appellate judges found the Pueblo court narrowly missed the deadline due to scheduling issues. Although the parties attempted to reach an agreement, discussions could not resolve the restitution amount 15 days before the deadline. Flesher held a hearing two days past the 91-day limit and entered his order eight days past the limit. The appeals judges saw his efforts as reasonable, and deemed “the press of other business” as good cause for delay.

“The district court kept up with the filings in this case and repeatedly took action; it did not let the issue of restitution languish unresolved for months,” Johnson explained. 

The panel also revised Rice’s restitution amount down to $500. The case is People v. Rice.