Colorado’s second-highest court on Thursday erased the $3,157 a man convicted of burglary owed to his victims because a Boulder County judge and prosecutor disregarded the deadline in state law for ordering restitution.

The same day, the Court of Appeals also overturned another defendant’s obligation to pay $17,360 in restitution, again because a trial judge did not follow the requirements of the law.

In Colorado, when a convicted defendant is required to pay financial restitution, prosecutors typically must provide the requested amount as soon as possible or within 91 days of sentencing. Similarly, judges generally must impose the restitution amount within 91 days of sentencing. If judges need to extend either deadline, they must find “good cause” exists.

The state’s appellate court has repeatedly found fault with judges’ restitution orders since the Colorado Supreme Court ruled in late 2021 that the typical process of awarding compensation to crime victims in practice did not comply with state law.

In People v. Weeks, which the Supreme Court decided in November 2021, the justices noted a lackadaisical approach had developed in the trial courts that failed to adhere to the clear deadlines and procedural requirements.

“(B)ased on the plain and ordinary meaning of the words and phrases,” Justice Carlos A. Samour Jr. clarified in the court’s opinion, “any finding of good cause must be made expressly and before the court’s deadline expires.”

The case of Brandon B. Sehorn out of Denver was typical of those where restitution orders have been overturned on appeal. Prosecutors charged Sehorn with stealing $27.36 of merchandise from a King Soopers store and assaulting the off-duty police officer who tried to stop him.

The Denver District Attorney’s Office, which originally requested Sehorn pay solely for the value of the stolen products, asked 88 days after his sentencing that Sehorn pay an additional $17,360 for the worker’s compensation benefits of the injured officer.

District Court Judge Shelley I. Gilman held a hearing beyond the 91-day deadline and ultimately awarded the prosecution’s total amount 153 days after sentencing — without finding good cause to do so. In an uncommon move, the Colorado Attorney General’s Office agreed with Sehorn on appeal that Gilman did not follow the law. Therefore, Sehorn is not responsible for paying more than the original $27.

“The court entered the order well over ninety-one days after sentencing, and it didn’t make an express finding of good cause to extend the deadline before the deadline had expired,” wrote Judge Christina F. Gomez in the three-member appellate panel’s Sept. 28 opinion.

The case out of Boulder County differed from Sehorn’s in that the prosecution did not even submit its request for payment within the deadline. Because the district attorney’s office “miscalandared” the date, the prosecutor asked 98 days after Josiah Castillo’s sentencing that he pay $3,157 to his burglary victims.

District Court Judge Thomas F. Mulvahill decided several months later there were “extenuating circumstances” to accept the request and ordered the full payment. On appeal, Castillo argued the restitution order did not comply with the law, and a different three-judge panel agreed with him.

“The two 91-day statutory deadlines were unmet, and the district court did not expressly find extenuating circumstances or good cause to extend any deadline until 225 days after the court entered Castillo’s judgment of conviction. This was too late,” wrote Judge Rebecca R. Freyre.

The panel overturned the restitution order.