Colorado’s second-highest court overturned a Weld County defendant’s obligation to pay more than $7,000 in crime victim restitution on Thursday because a trial judge failed to issue a legally compliant restitution order at the time of sentencing.

In Colorado, as part of sentencing, judges must consider whether defendants owe financial restitution to their victims.

In People v. Weeks, the state 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, 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 until the future and the judge granting that request. Justice Carlos A. Samour Jr., a former trial judge, noted that there are multiple options available at sentencing, including an order to impose the exact amount of restitution or an order leaving only the amount to be determined.

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

In 2014, Johan Joshua Urzua-Hernandez pleaded guilty to attempted murder and received a 20-year prison sentence. His plea agreement obligated him to pay restitution “as ordered by the Court.”

Then-District Court Judge Marcelo Kopcow asked Urzua-Hernandez if he understood that language. Urzua-Hernandez said yes.

At sentencing, Kopcow asked the prosecutor to “investigate that restitution.” He then told Urzua-Hernandez that the prosecutor is “simply going to potentially request that you pay any out-of-pocket expenses to the victims.”

The prosecution later sought $7,110 in restitution, which Kopcow approved without objection from the defense.

Nine years later, after the Supreme Court decided Weeks, Urzua-Hernandez argued the restitution decision was illegal because Kopcow did not impose one of the acceptable categories of orders at sentencing — making it seem that Urzua-Hernandez would only “potentially” pay restitution.

District Court Judge Timothy Kerns denied Urzua-Hernandez’s petition, concluding Urzua-Hernandez waited too long to challenge the order.

While Urzua-Hernandez appealed, the Supreme Court clarified its ruling in Weeks. In a package of five decisions in 2025, it acknowledged that not all seemingly noncompliant restitution orders should be overturned. But in instances where a trial judge pushes off the decision about whether to order restitution, the Supreme Court characterized the sentence as illegal and subject to challenge at any time.

A three-judge Court of Appeals panel agreed that Kopcow’s order fell into that category.

“In contrast, the only reference to restitution at the sentencing hearing in this case came from the district court, which granted the prosecutor ninety-one days to investigate and file a notice of restitution, and explained, ‘What this means is that the Prosecutor’s simply going to potentially request that you pay any out-of-pocket expense to the victims,’” wrote Judge Neeti V. Pawar in the Aug. 6 opinion. “We do not read this as an order, implicit or otherwise, that Urzua-Hernandez is liable for restitution and deferring only the amount.”

Consequently, “because the district court failed to enter one of the orders required,” she continued, “Urzua-Hernandez’s sentence was illegal.”

The case is People v. Urzua-Hernandez.