People v. Marceleno.
2026 COA 40. No. 24CA1169. Sentencing—Assessment of Restitution—Non-Felony Conviction Under CRS Title 42.
May 28, 2026
Sheriff’s deputies found Marceleno and his girlfriend asleep inside a stolen car. Deputies ordered Marceleno out of the car, but he sped off, and they chased him. Marceleno lost control of the car and crashed into the entrance gate of Patterson Farms, a gated community. Marceleno was convicted of two counts of reckless endangerment and one count each of vehicular eluding and criminal mischief. The district court sentenced him to nine years in Department of Corrections custody. The prosecution requested $26,439.99 in restitution: $6,440 to the car owner, $18,999.99 to State Farm to reimburse it for its payment to the Patterson Farms Homeowners’ Association (HOA) for replacing the damaged gate, and $1,000 to the HOA for its insurance deductible. The prosecution presented evidence of the car’s value, and the defense agreed that it was totaled. The prosecution also presented evidence that State Farm paid the HOA $21,300 to replace the gate. At the time of trial, the gate had not been fully repaired, but the HOA had already spent $11,500 on repairs, excluding labor costs not yet billed. Marceleno objected to restitution for the car owner and State Farm. The court reasoned that CRS § 18-1.3-603(8) applies only to restitution orders arising from non-felony convictions under CRS Title 42 and thus ruled that Marceleno had the burden of proving the existence of insurance coverage for the damaged vehicle. The court found that Marceleno was the proximate cause of the gate damage based on the jury’s findings and the evidence presented at trial. There was no evidence of car insurance coverage in the record. Following a hearing, the district court awarded $17,940 in restitution: $6,440 to the car owner, $10,500 to State Farm for the gate, and $1,000 to the HOA for the uncontested deductible.
On appeal, Marceleno contended that the district court erred by awarding the car owner restitution because § 18-1.3-603(8)(b) required the court to consider whether the car damage was covered by insurance and § 18-1.3-603(8)(c)(I) limited the court’s ability to award restitution if the car owner received or was eligible to receive reimbursement from an insurance company. Marceleno maintained that these provisions together placed the burden on the prosecution to present evidence of the car owner’s insurance coverage or lack thereof, so the court erroneously shifted the burden to the defense to present evidence on this matter. Section 18-1.3-603(8) limits restitution when a victim’s loss is covered by insurance. But § 18-1.3-603(8)(a) expressly limits its application to “non-felony conviction[s] under title 42.” The court of appeals concluded that the paragraph (a) limitation applies to all of § 18-1.3-603(8). Accordingly, because none of Marceleno’s convictions fall under title 42, the district court correctly determined that § 18-1.3-603(8) is inapplicable here.
Marceleno also argued that the district court erred by awarding restitution to State Farm because the evidence was insufficient to establish that he proximately caused the HOA’s gate upgrade expenses, specifically the addition of extra supports. He asserted that his conduct simply exposed an existing structural vulnerability, so the cost of its reinforcement is not compensable in restitution. However, the evidence showed that State Farm required the HOA to restore the gate to its pre-accident condition, and the replacement gate did not differ materially from the original. And even if the extra supports were included in the repair cost, the record does not support a finding that State Farm was placed in a better financial position than before the crime.
Marceleno further asserted that there was insufficient evidence to establish the gate’s repair cost because the prosecution submitted no documentation or invoices and relied only on the HOA representative’s trial testimony. But this argument goes to the weight of the evidence, not its sufficiency, and the district court considered and rejected this argument.
Marceleno also contended that he did not proximately cause State Farm’s alleged overpayment to the HOA, arguing that the prosecution didn’t produce the cost breakdowns or analyses underlying State Farm’s payment determination. But even assuming State Farm’s payment was an overpayment, the district court did not award that amount, but rather ordered an amount less than half of what State Farm paid the HOA. Marceleno didn’t dispute that he destroyed the gate and conceded responsibility for the HOA’s $1,000 deductible. The record supports the district court’s finding that Marceleno’s conduct proximately caused State Farm’s losses, and the court did not err by ordering him to pay $10,500 to State Farm and $1,000 to the HOA.
The restitution order was affirmed.