Colorado v. Weeks
Annotate this CaseA jury found Benjamin Weeks guilty of aggravated robbery and felony menacing. At his sentencing hearing, which was held approximately a month later, the prosecutor asked that the issue of restitution “remain open.” Notably, the prosecutor informed the court that he’d determined he would be seeking restitution but hadn’t filed a motion yet. He promised to follow up with a written motion within ninety-one days. Defense counsel indicated that he would address restitution “when there’s a motion filed.” The court granted the prosecutor’s request, reserved the issue of restitution for ninety-one days, and set a briefing schedule. The prosecutor filed a motion for restitution for the amount stolen in the robbery, plus prejudgment interest. The prosecutor informed the court he was still investigating whether there were grounds to seek additional restitution. Twenty-three days later, Weeks filed a response in which he argued the actual losses were less than was proposed by the prosecution, and that the issue of restitution should not remain open indefinitely. At a restitution hearing eight months later, Weeks countered the prosecution’s restitution request by contending the court no longer had jurisdiction to require him to pay since the ninety-one day deadline in C.R.S. 18-1.3-603(1)(b). The trial court ultimately rejected Weeks’ contention and ordered restitution. The Colorado Supreme Court determined the trial court issued its order without making an express and timely finding of good cause for extending the deadline. The Court of Appeals correctly concluded that by the trial court ordered defendant to pay restitution, it lacked authority to do so.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.