Cases | People v. Quinonez, 735 P.2d 159 (Colo. 1987) | 2018
Defendant pled guilty to first degree murder arising from an altercation resulting in a victim’s death. Though the altercation resulted in injury to another victim, defendant was not charged with a crime related to the injured victim. Defendant was ordered to pay restitution to the deceased victim’s estate as well as to the injured victim. The appellate court held that restitution could not be ordered to persons other than those who are victims of crimes for which a defendant was charged and that restitution could not be ordered unless the trial court made a factual finding that a defendant had the ability to pay before the order was entered. The supreme court held that: (1) a defendant may, as part of a plea agreement, consent to the payment of restitution to persons or entities damaged as a result of his conduct. However, restitution was improperly ordered to the injured victim because defendant never agreed to pay restitution to him; and (2) the trial court need not make factual findings regarding a defendant's ability to pay prior to ordering restitution. As the legislature indicated that such findings were not required, the court declined to impose the obligation on trial courts absent compelling needs. However, the court noted that in determining the amount of restitution, the trial court should make use of the probation or presentence report and any other evidence that the parties presented at the sentencing hearing regarding the amount of damage, the defendant's present and future financial circumstances, and his family obligations.
(This case cites former Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-11-204.5.)