HB1304 changes Colorado’s restitution timeline in criminal cases. Under current law, when a defendant is convicted, the court must include restitution consideration and the specific restitution amount is generally determined within 91 days after conviction, with possible extensions for good cause. This bill shortens that default deadline to 63 days, but it also ties the deadline to the prosecuting attorney’s submission of restitution information: the amount must be determined within 63 days after that submission or within 63 days after the conviction order, whichever is later, unless good cause justifies more time.
The bill also clarifies the prosecutor’s role in gathering and presenting restitution information, including victim impact statements and other evidence needed to identify victims and calculate restitution. It applies only to defendants sentenced on or after the effective date. The measure is framed as a procedural change intended to speed up restitution determinations while preserving the court’s ability to extend deadlines when warranted.
Impact
HB1304 amends Colorado Revised Statutes section 18-1.3-603, which governs restitution in criminal cases. The bill shortens the statutory deadline for determining restitution amounts from 91 days to 63 days and adds a later-of rule based on when the prosecutor submits restitution information. This affects trial courts, prosecutors, victims, and criminal defendants by changing the timing for restitution orders and potentially accelerating final sentencing-related financial obligations.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have broad support and little visible opposition. It passed the House Judiciary Committee unanimously and advanced through the House and Senate with comfortable margins, including a recommendation for the Senate consent calendar. The voting history suggests the measure was viewed as a relatively noncontroversial procedural adjustment rather than a major policy dispute.
Contention
The main policy issue is the balance between faster restitution resolution and the practical time needed for prosecutors and victims to compile accurate restitution information. Supporters appear to favor a shorter, more efficient deadline, while the bill preserves flexibility through a good-cause extension and an extenuating-circumstances extension for the court. There is no recorded committee testimony in the provided materials, and the strong votes suggest no significant public or legislative controversy.