Colorado’s second-highest court voided a defendant’s obligation to pay more than $66,000 in crime victim restitution last week, finding a Mesa County judge neglected to follow the process laid out in state law.

In Colorado, as part of sentencing, judges must consider whether defendants owe financial restitution to their victims. If so, prosecutors generally need to provide the requested amount by the time of sentencing or within 91 days of sentencing. Judges must also impose the restitution amount typically within 91 days of sentencing.

In People v. Weeks, the Supreme Court ruled in November 2021 that judges’ historical process of awarding compensation to crime victims did not comply with Colorado law. The justices noted that a lackadaisical approach had taken hold in the trial courts, with courts neglecting clear deadlines and procedural requirements. Consequently, if trial judges fail to follow the law, they may lose authority to issue a restitution order.

Specifically, the Supreme Court disapproved of the then-commonplace scenario of prosecutors informing judges at sentencing that they would like to “reserve the issue” of restitution for 91 days, and the judge granting that request. Justice Carlos A. Samour Jr., a former trial judge, noted there are multiple options available at sentencing, ranging from an order to impose the exact amount of restitution to an order finding no restitution is required.

“Reserving the issue of restitution in its entirety until a later date isn’t one of them,” he wrote.

More than a year after the Weeks decision, Stephen Cramer pleaded guilty to vehicular assault after he crashed into another car and seriously injured the driver. His plea agreement indicated Cramer “agrees to pay the restitution,” which “will be left open.” District Court Judge Gretchen B. Larson confirmed at sentencing that Cramer’s restitution “would be left open for 91 days.”

Accordingly, the prosecutor asked that Larson leave restitution open. She agreed, adding that “if the (prosecution is) requesting restitution, they must file a written motion.”

Three months later, and within the 91-day deadline, then-District Court Judge Valerie Robison ordered Cramer to pay $66,589 in crime victim restitution.

Cramer appealed, arguing that his restitution obligation was not authorized by law. A three-judge Court of Appeals panel agreed with one of his arguments: Larson’s decision to leave restitution open at sentencing was not one of the options available to her.

Judge Terry Fox, in the panel’s Nov. 26 opinion, pointed to a Supreme Court decision from May that clarified its prior ruling in Weeks. The justices reiterated that Colorado law does not authorize judges “to simply defer the issue of restitution in its entirety.” If a judge fails to impose any of the listed options for a restitution order, the sentence is illegal and the restitution obligation must be voided.

In Cramer’s case, wrote Fox, that is what happened.

“Because the court improperly deferred restitution in its entirety, the restitution order must be vacated,” she concluded.

The case is People v. Cramer.