Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

People ex rel. D.M.

Court of Appeals of Colorado, Fifth Division

April 18, 2019

The People of the State of Colorado, Petitioner-Appellee, In the Interest of D.M., Juvenile-Appellant.

          Boulder County District Court No. 15JD385 Honorable Patrick D. Butler, Judge

          Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, Kevin E. McReynolds, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Petitioner-Appellee

          The Law Office of Thomas W. Martin, LLC, Thomas W. Martin, Fort Collins, Colorado, for Juvenile-Appellant

          JONES Terry and Grove, JJ, concur

          OPINION

          JUDGE J.

         ¶ 1 Section 18-1.3-603(1), C.R.S. 2018, says that every order of conviction for a criminal offense (with certain exceptions) must "include consideration of restitution." And, unless the sentencing court finds that no victim suffered a pecuniary loss, the court must order the defendant to pay restitution to the victim. Id.

         ¶ 2 Likewise, a juvenile whom the court has adjudicated delinquent must pay restitution for a victim's loss of personal property as required by section 18-1.3-603. § 19-2-918(1), C.R.S. 2018. But what if the victim's pecuniary loss is the value of marijuana stolen from the victim's marijuana store? Can a defendant be required to pay restitution for such loss?

         ¶ 3 D.M., a juvenile who stole marijuana from a marijuana store, says "no," contending that because the Federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. §§ 801-971 (2018), makes it a federal offense to distribute marijuana and provides that no one has a property interest in marijuana, Colorado's restitution statutes can't be applied to his conduct. In short, he contends that the CSA preempts the restitution statutes in these circumstances. But because we don't see any positive conflict between the CSA and the restitution statutes, we reject D.M.'s preemption argument and affirm the order of restitution.

         I. Background

         ¶ 4 D.M. and two of his friends broke into a licensed marijuana dispensary in the middle of the night and stole marijuana plants and products worth $178, 000. The People filed a petition for delinquency, charging D.M. with theft and second degree burglary, both class 3 felonies. D.M. agreed to plead guilty to burglary of a nondwelling, a class 4 felony, in exchange for dismissal of the original charges. The district court accepted the plea agreement, adjudicated D.M. delinquent, and sentenced him to nine months of probation.

         ¶ 5 The prosecution filed a motion for an order requiring D.M. to pay $178, 000 in restitution for the value of the stolen marijuana. D.M. didn't dispute the amount of the loss but argued that the court couldn't order such restitution because the CSA preempts the restitution statutes. The district court rejected that argument and ordered D.M. to pay the store owner $178, 000 in restitution.

         II. The CSA Doesn't Preempt Colorado's Restitution Statutes

         A. Standard of Review

         ¶ 6 We review de novo whether federal law preempts state law. People ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.