Colorado § 19-2.5-1104 - Sentencing - restitution by juvenile.

§ 19-2.5-1104. Sentencing - restitution by juvenile.

(1) If the court finds that a juvenile who receives a deferral of adjudication or who is adjudicated a juvenile delinquent has damaged a victim's personal or real property, that the victim's personal property has been lost, or that personal injury has been caused to a victim as a result of the juvenile's delinquent act, the court, in addition to any other sentence or commitment that it may impose on the juvenile pursuant to section 19-2.5-1103, shall enter a sentencing order requiring the juvenile to make restitution as required by article 18.5 of title 16 and part 6 of article 1.3 of title 18.

(2) Restitution must be ordered to be paid in a reasonable manner, as determined by the court and in accordance with article 18.5 of title 16 and part 6 of article 1.3 of title 18.

(3) Notwithstanding section 18-1.3-602 (4)(a)(III) or any other provision of law, a court shall not order a juvenile to pay restitution to an insurance company. A court may order a juvenile to pay restitution to a victim for the portion of a 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.

(4) As used in this section, "victim" does not mean an insurance company, as defined in section 38-13-102 (13), for purposes of restitution in juvenile cases.

Source: L. 2021: Entire article added with relocations, (SB 21-059), ch. 136, p. 637, § 2, effective October 1. L. 2022: (3) and (4) added, (HB 22-1373), ch. 392, p. 2772, § 1, effective June 7.

Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 19-2-918 as it existed prior to 2021.

ANNOTATION

Annotator's note. The following annotations include cases decided under former provisions similar to this section.

The federal Controlled Substances Act does not preempt the state's restitution statutes. There is no positive conflict between the two statutes. The restitution statutes do not require a defendant to violate the Controlled Substances Act. Ordering restitution to a licensed marijuana business and thereby acknowledging a state property interest in marijuana does not positively conflict with the Controlled Substances Act. People in Interest of D.M., 2019 COA 56M, 444 P.3d 834.

Three overriding requirements must be met before a restitution order can be valid: The person who is required to pay restitution must receive adequate notice that the victim or the victim's family claims damages, there must be notice of the amount of restitution requested, and the person obligated to pay must be given the opportunity to controvert the victim's claimed monetary damages. People in Interest of J.L.R., 895 P.2d 1151 (Colo. App. 1995).

Under mandatory provisions of former § 19-2-703 (4) requiring the court to order restitution, the ability of juvenile to pay at the time restitution is ordered is irrelevant. People in Interest of A.R.M., 832 P.2d 1093 (Colo. App. 1992).

Restitution order is reasonable if it gives the juvenile sufficient latitude to comply at some time in the future. People in Interest of A.R.M., 832 P.2d 1093 (Colo. App. 1992).

Inability to pay bars enforcement of a restitution order only if it is the basis for revocation of probation. People in Interest of A.R.M., 832 P.2d 1093 (Colo. App. 1992).

Incarceration of juvenile not a bar to imposition of restitution order. People in Interest of A.R.M., 832 P.2d 1093 (Colo. App. 1992); People v. T.R., 860 P.2d 559 (Colo. App. 1993).

Court must make findings of the reasonableness of the restitution amount and the reasonableness of the repayment terms at the time restitution is ordered. People in Interest of A.R.M., 832 P.2d 1093 (Colo. App. 1992).

Court may consider family circumstances as well as the juvenile's potential ability to pay after release from incarceration in considering whether restitution would cause serious hardship or injustice to the juvenile. People in Interest of A.R.M., 832 P.2d 1093 (Colo. App. 1992).

In amending the statute in 1996 and 2000, the general assembly intended to remove the ability to pay and hardship from a juvenile court's consideration when ordering restitution. People in Interest of A.V., 2018 COA 138M, 446 P.3d 887 (holding contrary to People in Interest of A.R.M., 832 P.2d 1093 (Colo. App. 1992) (decided under former law)); People in Interest of D.L.C., 2019 COA 135, 461 P.3d 588.

Legislative intent underlying this section is that whenever possible, restitution should be required. People v. T.R., 860 P.2d 559 (Colo. App. 1993).

Restitution serves society's interest by encouraging juveniles to be responsible for the damage they cause. People in Interest of A.R.M., 832 P.2d 1093 (Colo. App. 1992); People v. T.R., 860 P.2d 559 (Colo. App. 1993).

A juvenile court may not suspend accrual of postjudgment interest on restitution for a juvenile while the juvenile is committed to the division of youth services. People in Interest of D.L.C., 2019 COA 135, 461 P.3d 588.

Payment of restitution to victim's insurer. The broad statutory requirement that a delinquent child must pay "for any damage done to persons or property" fully authorizes a district court's order that the delinquent make restitution to the victim's insurer. People in Interest of P.J.N., 664 P.2d 245 (Colo. 1983).

Restitution order upon juvenile who was adjudicated delinquent in proceeding arising from auto accident was proper even though he served a full sentence of incarceration and restitution was not part of conditional release. People v. T.R., 860 P.2d 559 (Colo. App. 1993).

Trial court cannot order juvenile who was adjudicated delinquent in proceeding arising from auto accident to pay restitution to the victim's automobile insurer because the insurer had no right to subrogation to sue the juvenile civilly under § 10-4-713, the no-fault insurance act. People v. T.R., 860 P.2d 559 (Colo. App. 1993).

Adjudication of juvenile delinquency is not conviction of a crime within the language of the federal Bankruptcy Code; therefore, a restitution debt is dischargeable under the code. In re Sweeney, 341 B.R. 35 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2006), aff'd, 492 F.3d 1189 (10th Cir. 2007).

Juvenile court lacked authority to transfer defendant's restitution obligation from an unrelated juvenile case to defendant's adult case, and district court had no authority to include the juvenile court's restitution order in its community corrections or department of corrections sentence in an unrelated case. People v. Brooks, 250 P.3d 771 (Colo. App. 2010).