Colorado’s second-highest court concluded on Thursday that a defendant has no obligation to pay nearly $37,000 in crime victim restitution due to a faulty order that even the trial judge acknowledged was contrary to the law. In Colorado, as part of sentencing, judges must consider whether defen dants owe financial restitution to their victims. If so, prosecutors generally need to provide the requested amount by the time of sentencing or, as the law existed before 2025, within 91 days of sentencing. Judges, before 2025, also needed to impose the restitution amount, typically within 91 days of sentencing. The legislature changed the law this year to modify the timelines, while keeping the general framework intact. 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. Specifically, the Supreme Court disapproved of the then-commonplace scenario of prosecutors informing judges at sentencing that they would like to “reserve the issue” of restitution for 91 days, and the judge granting that request. Justice Carlos A. Samour Jr., a former trial judge, noted there are multiple options available at sentencing, including an order to impose the exact amount of restitution or an order leaving only the amount to be determined. “Reserving the issue of restitution in its entirety until a later date isn’t one of them,” he wrote. FILE PHOTO: Colorado Supreme Court Justice Carlos A. Samour Jr. speaks to students at Pine Creek High School during a Courts in the Community event in Colorado Springs on Thursday, Nov. 17, 2022. (The Gazette, Parker Seibold) In 2019, Ha Xiong pleaded guilty in Morgan County to impaired driving and drug possession charges related to a vehicle accident he caused. His plea agreement noted Xiong would “pay all restitution” to the other driver and any other injured party. At his sentencing hearing, the prosecutor asked for 91 days to “file for any restitution.” Then-District Court Judge Charles M. Hobbs gave 91 days “to file a restitution request.” He ultimately awarded $36,809.12 in restitution 112 days after sentencing. After Weeks, Xiong filed a motion for postconviction relief, alleging Hobbs’ order did not follow the required procedure. Hobbs, in response, acknowledged he used the same process the Supreme Court disapproved of, but he declined to vacate the restitution order. Evaluating Xion’s request “requires the Court to not only consider the fairness to the Defendant and the (prosecution), but also to the victim to whom which restitution is owed,” he wrote. “The victims are the blameless party and the Court finds it would be manifestly inequitable to the victim to retroactively disallow a procedure that was widely in use throughout the state with the effect of eliminating all restitution in this matter.” Xiong appealed, but a three-judge Court of Appeals panel believed he challenged his restitution order too late. Because Xiong only disputed the propriety of how Hobbs imposed the amount, he had 126 days to do so, the panel reasoned last fall. In contrast, if Hobbs ordered restitution without a legal basis, there would be no time limit. Then, earlier this year, the Supreme Court issued a package of decisions clarifying its directive in Weeks. It returned Xiong’s case to the Court of Appeals for a second look. Specifically, the justices referenced their decision in Snow v. People, which found a judge’s failure to impose one of the specifically listed types of restitution orders to constitute an illegal sentence that can be challenged at any time. Case: People v. XiongDecided: December 18, 2025Jurisdiction: Morgan CountyRuling: 2-1Judges: Elizabeth L. Harris (author)Dennis A. GrahamDavid H. Yun (dissent) Back at the Court of Appeals, the same panel concluded, by 2-1, that Hobbs had imposed an illegal sentence after all. “The postconviction court’s order acknowledges that the sentencing court — one and the same judge — applied the problematic procedure identified in Weeks,” wrote Judge Elizabeth L. Harris in the Dec. 18 opinion. The fault stemmed from Hobbs never ruling at sentencing that Xiong would be liable for paying restitution, only that the prosecution had 91 days “to file a restitution request.” Harris, writing for herself and Judge Dennis A. Graham, indicated it was possible for a judge to “implicitly” determine a defendant must pay restitution, and that only the amount is to be determined. But in Xiong’s case, “the sentencing court’s own understanding of its actions indicates that it did not enter one of the orders required,” she wrote. Judge David H. Yun dissented. He believed Hobbs did “implicitly” order Xiong to pay restitution by approving the plea agreement containing a restitution provision and granting the prosecution 91 days to make its request. “Why would the prosecutor reserve the issue of restitution entirely when Xiong had already agreed to pay ‘all restitution’ in the plea agreement and the court had formally approved it?” Yun wrote. Because he would have subjected Xiong’s challenge to the 126-day limit, Yun indicated he would have upheld the order. The case is People v. Xiong. ...read more read less