Appeals court says defendants must still pay restitution even if prosecution 'undercharges' them

Colorado's second-highest court ruled on Thursday that criminal defendants must still pay financial restitution to their victims for the losses they cause, even if they are convicted of a crime that caps the dollar amount at something less. In Colorado, as part of sentencing, judges must consider whether defendants owe financial restitution to their victims. Restitution means the dollar amount associated with "any" losses or injuries "proximately caused by an offender's conduct.

" A Mesa County jury convicted Casey B. Ragsdal of burglary and theft after he broke into the victim's home and took the keys to two vehicles and a shed. District Court Judge Matthew D.



Barrett ordered Ragsdal to pay restitution to the victim for the cost of the keys, $501.92. Ragsdal appealed, noting prosecutors charged him — and jurors convicted him — of stealing between $50 and $300 of property.

Using the text of the restitution law and prior appellate decisions, Ragsdal's lawyer pointed out defendants cannot be ordered to pay restitution for conduct they were acquitted of. Because Ragsdal was never convicted of stealing more than $300, Barrett's restitution order violated that principle. "It follows that conduct for which an individual is never criminally charged cannot be considered the 'conduct of an offender,' nor can any person be considered a victim as to that conduct," wrote attorney Cynthia A.

Harvey. The Colorado Attorney General's Office countered that judges "routinely" direct defendants to pay restitution for a victim's mental health expenses related to the offense. Therefore, restitution orders are not strictly tied to the elements of the crime.

Decided: January 30, 2025 Jurisdiction: Mesa County Ruling: 3-0 Judges: Craig R. Welling (author) Jerry N. Jones Karl L.

Schock A three-judge panel for the Court of Appeals sided against Ragsdal. In a Jan. 30 opinion , Judge Craig R.

Welling wrote that if prosecutors charged Ragsdal with stealing more than $300 and jurors acquitted him, that would be one thing. But jurors convicted Ragsdal of conduct that directly caused the victim's financial loss. "Put another way, that Ragsdal may have been, in retrospect, under charged, doesn’t make any of the conduct that underlies the court’s restitution order un charged," Welling wrote.

He added that if the evidence supports a dollar figure higher than the charge prosecutors pursue, the restitution law's directive to consider "any" losses allows for a higher-than-charged award. The case is People v. Ragsdal.

.