Colorado committee considers bill to separate restitution timelines after court rulings

Representative Rob Froelich, sponsor of House Bill 13‑04, told the House Judiciary Committee the bill would fix a statutory timing conflict exposed by recent court decisions that has caused some victims to lose the chance to obtain restitution.

The proposal would separate the current overlapping 91‑day deadlines so the prosecution has a fixed period to gather and submit restitution documentation and the court would have a separate period, measured from that submission, to schedule any hearing and enter a final order.

Why it matters: The Colorado Supreme Court in People v. Weeks and subsequent appellate opinions flagged confusion created by parallel statutory deadlines. Witnesses said that when prosecutors submit restitution requests late in the same 91‑day window the court has to act, judges sometimes lack time to hold hearings and issue orders, and appellate courts have vacated some restitution awards as a result.

Sponsor and supporters: "Current law ... causes victim survivors to lose that opportunity for restitution," Representative Rob Froelich said, urging a legislative fix. Prosecutors' groups and the Colorado Attorney General's office told the committee they support clarifying the timing and separating the timelines so courts have a discrete period to rule after prosecutors file their materials. Brian Mason, district attorney for the 17th Judicial District, described the workload behind restitution: "we have in my office right now about 30,000 cases," and said his office relies on a small team of restitution technicians to assemble documentation.

Defense and public‑defender concerns: Attorneys from the Office of the State Public Defender and the Colorado Criminal Defense Bar said they support preserving the Weeks court's emphasis that prosecutors must exercise "reasonable diligence" and that courts should have information available at sentencing when possible. James Karbach of the State Public Defender's Office said defenders are "hopeful that we can land at 63 and 63 days" (a proposed compromise of 63 days for the prosecutor and 63 days for the court), and urged that any statutory change preserve the existing duty of the prosecution to seek restitution before sentencing when practicable.

Other testimony: Victim‑advocate groups, including COVA (the Colorado Organization for Victim Assistance) and Mothers Against Drunk Driving, supported the bill as a way to reduce incidents in which victims are deprived of restitution because of timing technicalities. Assistant attorneys general said bifurcating the deadlines would reduce appeals that vacate otherwise‑appropriate restitution orders.

Committee action and next steps: The sponsor asked the committee to lay the bill over to allow further work with stakeholders on language and possible amendments. Committee staff announced the bill will be carried over for action next week to allow additional drafting and negotiation.

Context and limits: Testimony repeatedly stressed that the bill, as discussed in committee, is intended to change only the timing mechanics and not to alter the substantive standards governing whether restitution is appropriate. Several witnesses urged that statutory language explicitly preserve the Weeks court's requirement that prosecutors use due diligence to assemble restitution figures prior to sentencing when possible.