Legal Opinion · Dissent

People v. Dillingham

Colorado Court of Appeals

Decided May 5, 1994No. 93CA0187Published

1Dissent

*443Judge JONES

dissenting.

I respectfully dissent. In my view, reward money is not encompassed by the statute authorizing restitution; therefore, I agree with the defendant that the trial court erred in ordering him to pay restitution as a condition of probation in the amount of a reward arbitrarily established and paid by the victim.

The trial court’s authority to set the terms and conditions of probation is statutory. Cumhuriyet v. People, 200 Colo. 466, 616 P.2d 724 (1980). Section 16-11-204.5(1), C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 8A) authorizes a court to order restitution pursuant to the following…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Cumhuriyet v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado · 1980
  2. People v. AcostaColorado Court of Appeals · 1993
  3. People v. EngelColorado Court of Appeals · 1987
  4. Matter of WyseMontana Supreme Court · 1984
  5. People v. CourtneyColorado Court of Appeals · 1993

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API