Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Restitution And Victims Rights topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel clears bill to separate restitution deadlines so judges have time to set awards
Summary
House Bill 1304 (13‑04) would decouple prosecutors’ and courts’ restitution deadlines so judges have a separate 63‑day window to hold hearings and enter final restitution orders; the committee forwarded the bill with a favorable recommendation.
The Senate Judiciary Committee voted to send House Bill 1304 (referred to as 13‑04 in committee) to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation after sponsors said statutory deadlines for restitution currently overlap and have produced cases in which courts lost authority to order restitution.
What the bill does: Under current law, parallel statutory deadlines can leave a court with little or no time to schedule hearings, hear objections and enter a final restitution order if prosecutors submit restitution information late in the presumptive 91‑day window. HB 13‑04 would separate the timelines, giving prosecutors up to 63 days to submit documentation and then a separate 63‑day period for the court to hold a hearing and enter a restitution order. Sponsors said the measure restores clarity so victims are less likely to lose restitution due to timing technicalities.
Support and rationale: The Attorney General’s Office told the committee that appellate rulings (including People v. Weeks) interpreting the overlapping deadlines had left victims vulnerable when courts entered restitution orders after the statutory deadline. Prosecutors’ organizations and victim‑advocacy groups backed the proposal as a technical statutory fix to ensure courts retain clear authority to order restitution and victims are not deprived of compensation because of timing errors.
Committee action: The committee moved the bill forward with a favorable recommendation. Sponsors said they will continue to consult with stakeholders on companion provisions (including an interim discussion about earlier conversion of restitution to civil judgment in a separate effort).
