Arapahoe County District Court No. 15CR992 Honorable Michelle
A. Amico, Judge
Cynthia H. Coffman, Attorney General, Katharine Gillespie,
Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for
Douglas K. Wilson, Colorado State Public Defender, Ashley E.
Sullivan, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, Colorado, for
1 After a crime victim compensation board makes a payment to
a victim, it might ask a court to order the defendant in the
victim's case to pay restitution to the board. One of
Colorado's restitution statutes, section
18-1.3-603(10)(a), C.R.S. 2017, guides a trial court's
decision when addressing a compensation board's request
for restitution. As is pertinent to our analysis, it states
that (1) if a board has "provided assistance to or on
behalf of a victim" "as a result of the
defendant's conduct"; then (2) a trial court must
"presume" that the amount of the assistance that
the board paid to the victim was "a direct result of the
defendant's criminal conduct, " which the court
"must . . . consider . . . in determining the amount
of restitution ordered." Id.
2 In this case, the trial court, relying on section
18-1.3-603(10)(a)'s presumption, ordered defendant,
Anthony Wayne Henry, to pay restitution to a compensation
board. He appeals, and he asserts that the evidence was not
sufficient to support the compensation board's
restitution request. We disagree because we conclude that the
trial court properly relied on the statutory presumption and
that defendant did not provide any evidence to rebut it. We
3 A jury convicted defendant of third degree assault. It had
heard evidence that he had struck the victim, bruising her
face, her chest, and her throat.
4 At the sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a
two-year jail term. As is pertinent to our analysis, the
court also ordered defendant to pay $900 in restitution.
Defendant objected to this amount, and he asked for an
evidentiary hearing. The court replied that he could contest
the restitution order after he had consulted with the
prosecution to see if the $900 figure was accurate.
5 This consultation apparently did not satisfy defendant,
because he filed a second objection. The objection asked for
additional documentation to support the restitution request
and for a hearing. The court granted the request for a
hearing. But it denied the request for additional
documentation, reasoning that the records that defendant
sought were confidential.
6 At the hearing, defendant objected to the documentation
that the prosecution had submitted in support of the
restitution request. He asserted, as is relevant to our
discussion, that the documents did not explain (1) how the
victim had suffered any losses; or (2) how defendant's
criminal conduct had caused those losses.
7 After a recess, the issue came into clearer focus.
According to the director of the compensation board, the $900
restitution figure included the board's request for
restitution for $230 that it had paid to the victim for lost
wages. Defendant refined his position, stating that there was
no evidence that the victim had missed enough time from work
to support a request for $230 in lost wages. He therefore
asked the court to review the relevant records from the
compensation board in camera.
8 The compensation board's director then testified. She
. the board generally relies on two sources
of information when it decided whether and how much it should
pay a victim for lost wages:
o a form filled out by a victim; and
o a form filled out by the victim's ...