August 23, 2019

Colorado Court of Appeals: Judicial Economy Not Served by Allowing Late Filing of Notice of Appeal of Restitution Order

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People v. Hill on May 12, 2011.

Restitution—Appeal—Timeliness.

Defendant Kevin Hill appealed the trial court’s order granting restitution. The appeal was denied.

On May 9, 2008, the trial court sentenced Hill to six years in the custody of the Department of Corrections (DOC), plus three years of mandatory parole, on his plea of guilty to second-degree assault, serious bodily injury. The sentence included restitution, but the court gave Hill thirty days to object to the amount. He did so. He also moved to withdraw his guilty plea and vacate the sentence, which the court denied. Hill appealed this order on June 23, 2008, before the court had addressed the restitution dispute. The court entered a restitution order on November 24, 2009. On February 9, 2011, Hill moved for leave to file an amended notice of appeal “to include issues relating to the restitution order,” which was denied. Hill appealed the denial of his motion to file the amended notice of appeal.

Hill argued that he had good cause for filing a late notice of appeal of the restitution order, and the trial court erred in denying his request. Although the People will not suffer any prejudice from the late filing, judicial economy will not be served by allowing the late filing. In addition, Hill may otherwise pursue his claims by filing a Crim.P. 35(a) or (c) motion. Therefore, Hill has not shown good cause for his failure to timely file an amended notice of appeal of the restitution order. Hill’s motion for leave to file an amended notice of appeal was denied.

This summary is published here courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer. Other summaries by the Colorado Court of Appeals on May 12, 2011, can be found here.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Speak Your Mind

*