Colorado’s second-highest court overturned a defendant’s obligation to pay nearly $350,000 in crime victim restitution last week because an Arapahoe County judge issued the restitution order beyond the legal deadline. The divided decision of a three-judge Court of Appeals panel is the latest illustration of the struggle some judges continue to have with Colorado’s restitution process, despite detailed guidance from the state Supreme Court on what it should entail. While the legislature amended the law this year to modify the timelines, it retained the general framework. In Colorado, as part of sentencing, judges must consider whether defendants owe financial restitution to their victims. If so, prosecutors generally need to share the requested amount by the time of sentencing or, as the law existed before 2025, within 91 days of sentencing. Judges also needed to impose the restitution amount within 91 days of sentencing or else find good cause to extend the deadline. In People v. Weeks, the 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. In Weeks, the court set out its vision for the restitution procedure, and followed up earlier this year with a package of decisions clarifying the process under various scenarios—including when the defense’s actions cause a trial judge to consider the restitution amount beyond the 91-day deadline. Deputy State Public Defender Lisa Weisz walks to the lectern during the Colorado Supreme Court’s “Courts in the Community” visit to Falcon High School in Peyton, Colo. on May 15, 2025. (Photo by Michael Karlik/Colorado Politics) In July 2023, jurors found Rigoberto Valles-Dominguez guilty of attempted murder for non-fatally shooting a Littleton police officer, plus other offenses. His sentencing took place on Sept. 23, 2023, and the prosecution asked for 45 days to determine the full amount of restitution. On Nov. 6, the parties appeared in court following the prosecution’s request for approximately $350,000 in restitution. The prosecutor observed that the 91-day deadline would expire on Dec. 25 and requested that a restitution hearing be held before then. The hearing was scheduled for Dec. 13. For unclear reasons, the hearing ultimately took place on Feb. 2, 2024. District Court Judge LaQunya Baker largely granted the prosecution’s request and ordered Valles-Dominguez to pay $349,999 in restitution, primarily to the city of Littleton for wages and medical costs for the injured officer. Case: People v. Valles-DominguezDecided: December 24, 2025Jurisdiction: Arapahoe CountyRuling: 2-1Judges: Christina F. Gomez (author)Craig R. WellingGrant T. Sullivan (dissent) The majority of the Court of Appeals panel agreed with Valles-Dominguez. Although the defense did not object to the belated restitution hearing, wrote Judge Christina F. Gomez, it also did not consent to the untimely proceeding. Therefore, Valles-Dominguez had not given up his right to challenge the order. “The trial court here did not determine the restitution amount within the ninety-one-day deadline, and there is no indication in the record that the court found good cause to extend the deadline,” Gomez wrote for herself and Judge Craig R. Welling in the Dec. 24 opinion. “Therefore, the court lacked authority to order restitution.” Judge Grant T. Sullivan disagreed. He believed the defense’s knowledge of the 91-day deadline, coupled with its failure to object to the February hearing, meant Valles-Dominguez had taken some action to acquiesce to the untimely proceeding. Sullivan would have upheld Baker’s order under the Supreme Court’s 2025 precedent. He also worried the majority had provided a roadmap for defendants to nullify restitution orders by withholding their objection whenever a trial judge schedules a restitution hearing beyond the deadline. Then, they can successfully appeal a deadline violation. “In my view, a defendant who chooses to refrain from objecting to an untimely restitution hearing, despite being fully aware of the applicable deadline, shouldn’t receive such a windfall,” Sullivan wrote. The decision in Valles-Dominguez’s case came one week after a different appellate panel overturned a defendant’s $37,000 restitution obligation due to a faulty order. That panel was similarly divided over how to apply the Supreme Court’s recent precedent, specifically about the timeliness of the defendant’s challenge. The case is People v. Valles-Dominguez. ...read more read less