People v. Perez.
2020 COA 83. No. 16CA0446. Criminal Law—Sentencing—Restitution—Timeli- ness—Extenuating Circumstances—Confidential Records—Proximate Cause—Physician-Patient Privilege—Due Process.
May 28, 2020
Defendant was convicted of second degree assault with a deadly weapon. At sentencing, the trial court reserved a determination of restitution for 90 days. Ninety-four days after the order of conviction, the prosecution moved for an extension of time to request restitution. The trial court granted the motion. After a hearing, the trial court ordered restitution of $17,060 to be paid to the Crime Victim Compensation Board (CVCB) and $2,546 to be paid to the victim for lost wages.
On appeal, defendant argued that the trial court erred by ordering restitution more than 91 days after sentencing absent a showing of good cause. The 91-day provisions in CRS § 18-1.3-603 do not establish a deadline by which the trial court must enter an order for restitution. Rather, the period refers to the time within which the prosecution must provide restitution information to the trial court. Thus, the trial court had the authority to enter a restitution order.
Defendant also argued that the trial court failed to find extenuating circumstances for granting the prosecution additional time to provide the information necessary to determine restitution. When a trial court’s initial sentencing order defers determination of restitution, the statute requires the prosecuting attorney to determine the restitution within 91 days, unless the court finds that extenuating circumstances affect the prosecutor’s ability to determine restitution. Here, while the trial court granted the prosecution’s motion for an extension of time to request restitution, it erred by not finding that extenuating circumstances existed.
Defendant also argued that the trial court erred by relying on, but not fully disclosing, otherwise confidential CVCB records in determining proximate cause for the purpose of restitution because this violated the statute in effect at the time and his right to due process. The statute in effect at the time did not require the trial court to disclose otherwise privileged information to the defendant in violation of the victim’s privilege rights. Here, the court stated in its order that it provided defense counsel with all nonprivileged information from the CVCB’s records. Further, defendant’s right to due process does not override the victim’s physician-patient privilege. Therefore, the trial court committed no error by declining to disclose the privileged records.
The restitution order was vacated and the case was remanded for a determination of whether there were extenuating circumstances warranting an extension of the prosecutor’s deadline for submitting restitution information to the court.
2020 COA 84. No. 18CA2373. Day v. Colorado Secretary of State. Election Law—Campaign Finance Violation—Colorado Administrative Procedure Act—Appeals.
Petitioner filed a complaint with the Colorado Secretary of State Elections Division alleging a campaign finance violation. The Elections Division dismissed the complaint because it was filed outside the 91-day statute of limitations.
Petitioner appealed the dismissal to the Court of Appeals. However, the Colorado Administrative Procedure Act provides that any person adversely affected or aggrieved by any agency action may seek appellate review in the district court unless direct appeal to the Court of Appeals is specifically authorized. Here, no authority exists for direct review of petitioner’s appeal in the Court. Accordingly, the Court lacks jurisdiction.
The appeal was dismissed.