Court of Appeal finds defects in restitution orders in 2 cases

Colorado’s second highest court last week overturned multiple orders, in whole or in part, for criminal defendants to pay financial damages to their victims.

In the first case out of Arapahoe County, Aron Sanchez was charged with two counts of crimes. He was accused of breaking into a car to steal a stereo, after which his co-defendant shot and killed a person who confronted Sánchez. He was also accused of stealing items from a hardware store.

Prosecutors originally charged Sánchez with murder and aggravated robbery, respectively, but he pleaded guilty to the lesser charges of accessory to murder and attempted aggravated robbery.

The government requested that Sánchez pay approximately $3,000 in damages for his actions. The dollar amount covered the shooting victim’s funeral and the value of items stolen from the hardware store. District Court Judge Shay K. Whitaker ordered Sanchez to pay the requested amount.

On appeal, Sanchez claimed that he could not be held financially responsible because his criminal conduct did not result in the losses suffered. Because Sánchez was convicted of accessory to murder — that is, helping the shooter after the fact — he did not cause the victim’s death and should not be responsible for funeral costs.

Likewise, the value of the missing goods could not be attributed to him because Sánchez’s conviction related to attempted theft and not the theft itself. Enforcing the orders, Sanchez argued, would require him to pay restitution for the conduct of which he had been acquitted.

In an unusual move, the Colorado attorney general’s office conceded that Sanchez’s argument was correct and that the restitution orders could not be upheld.

“We also agree and vacate the orders,” Judge Anthony J. Navarro wrote in the Court of Appeals. October 24 advice.

The thing is People vs. Sanchez.

In the second case from Mesa County, Adam Joseph Salaz pleaded guilty to kidnapping an Uber driver, robbery and motor vehicle theft. Prosecutors asked Salaz for $11,265 in restitution, including the victim’s lost wages, her deductible for car repairs, and the replacement of her cell phone and headphones, which Salaz stole.

The Court of Appeals generally upheld the restitution order, with one exception: the telephone.

The victim purchased a new version of her stolen phone for $500. Then-Court Judge Valerie Robison noted that there was no evidence that “the replacement of the previous phone could have been accomplished at a lower cost.”

But Salaz argued that the purpose of restitution is to make the victim whole, not to leave him or her in a better position than before the crime occurred. In this case, the victim bought a new phone and was better off than if Salaz only had to pay the fair market value of the stolen phone.

“The victim’s testimony that the cell phone was two years old when it was stolen necessarily established that its value was less than that of a brand new phone,” Judge Elizabeth L. Harris wrote in the Court of Appeals. October 24 adviceAgree with Salaz. Prosecutors “have provided no evidence of the fair market value of the phone or of any attempt the victim made to obtain a comparable used cell phone.”

Consequently, the court ordered that $500 be deducted from Salaz’s restitution obligation.

The thing is People against Salaz.