People v. Lockett.
2025 COA 1. No. 23CA0914. Sentencing—Restitution—Non-felony Conviction Under Title 42—Loss Uncompensated by Insurance Policy, Self-Insurance, Indemnity Agreement, or Risk Management Fund.
January 16, 2025
Lockett was involved in a car accident that resulted in damage to a food truck owned by Alissa and a car owned by Ferrufino, which was insured by Allstate Insurance Company (Allstate). Lockett was charged with several crimes and pleaded guilty to misdemeanor driving under the influence (DUI) and one other charge. In exchange, the prosecution dismissed the remaining charges, including careless driving counts. The plea agreement included a sentencing stipulation but did not specifically mention restitution. The prosecution sought restitution for Allstate for the amount it paid to Ferrufino for her car’s value, and for Ferrufino and Alissa for the deductible amounts they paid to their insurance companies. The trial court concluded that Lockett’s conduct proximately caused the victims’ losses, and it ordered restitution as requested by the prosecution.
On appeal, Lockett argued that the trial court erred by awarding Allstate restitution because CRS § 18-1.3-603(8)(a) precludes insurance companies from recovering for losses in connection with a non-felony traffic offense under Title 42. However, the court of appeals held that § 18-1.3-603(8)(a) allows the trial court to award restitution to a victim’s insurance company for a non-felony conviction under Title 42 where the prosecution proves that the insurer cannot be compensated for its loss under an insurance policy, self-insurance, an indemnity agreement, or a risk management fund. Here, the prosecution presented testimony from Alissa and Ferrufino describing the collision and the deductible amounts they paid, and Ferrufino testified to the amount that Allstate paid her for the value of her car. But no one from Allstate testified, and no evidence demonstrated that Allstate’s payment to Ferrufino was not compensable under an insurance policy, self-insurance, an indemnity agreement, or a risk management fund. Accordingly, the trial court erred by ordering Lockett to pay restitution to Allstate.
Lockett also contended that the trial court erred by ordering him to pay restitution to Alissa and Ferrufino because their losses arose from conduct underlying dismissed careless driving charges rather than conduct essential to his DUI conviction. Here, the court found with record support that Lockett drove his vehicle while under the influence and, as a result, hit Ferrufino’s car, knocking her car into the food truck and damaging both vehicles. The prosecution thus established that Lockett proximately caused pecuniary loss to the vehicle owners, so the trial court properly awarded restitution to them.
That part of the order awarding restitution to Alissa and Ferrufino was affirmed. The part of the order awarding restitution to Allstate was vacated.