Peo in Interest of IAD

── Peo in Interest of IAD ── Court: Colorado Court of Appeals Date: May 21, 2026 Category: General 24CA0152 Peo in Interest of IAD 05-21-2026 COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No. 24CA0152 City and County of Denver Juvenile Court No. 23JD106 Honorable Laurie Clark, Judge The People of the State of Colorado, Petitioner-Appellee, In the Interest of I.A.D., Juvenile-Appellant. ORDER AFFIRMED Division II Opinion by JUDGE HARRIS Tow and Brown, JJ., concur NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) Announced May 21, 2026 Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, Austin R. Johnston, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Petitioner-Appellee Megan A. Ring, Colorado State Public Defender, Lisa Weisz, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, Colorado, for Juvenile-Appellant ¶1 I.A.D. appeals the juvenile court’s order requiring him to pay restitution, contending that the prosecution failed to timely provide restitution information and that I.A.D. did not proximately cause the victim’s loss. We affirm. I. Background ¶2 In February 2023, I.A.D. was charged with aggravated motor vehicle theft after he crashed a stolen Hyundai Elantra sedan and fled the scene. He later pleaded guilty to the charge under a deferred adjudication and sentence agreement. The agreement required I.A.D. to pay restitution and provided that “restitution is reserved.” ¶3 At the sentencing hearing in September, the prosecutor asked to “reserve restitution for [ninety-one] days.” The court “order[ed] restitution” but, noting that “it sounds like we don’t have that information yet,” set a restitution review hearing for November. ¶4 In the meantime, the prosecution filed a “restitution worksheet” with documentation showing a total restitution amount of $2,130. On the day of the review hearing, however, the prosecution filed an updated motion for restitution, requesting only $480. 1 ¶5 I.A.D. objected to the restitution motion, in part on the ground that the prosecution had failed to submit restitution information to the court before the sentencing hearing, as required by section 18- 1.3-603(2)(a), C.R.S. 2023.1 The court overruled the objection in a short written order but set a hearing on the amount of restitution. ¶6 The day before the restitution hearing, the prosecution filed a second restitution worksheet with documentation for two items listed on the original worksheet — an insurance deductible payment ($100) and a replacement key to a Ford F-150 truck ($308.95). ¶7 At the hearing, the owner of the stolen car testified that she was only seeking reimbursement for those two items because the other items on the original worksheet were recovered from her car after the crash. She said that due to the extensive damage to her car, the insurance company paid her the value of the car minus her $100 deductible. As for the Ford F-150 key, the car owner said that she kept her own key to her boyfriend’s truck and a key to the Elantra together on a key chain. I.A.D. had the keys in his pocket 1 The restitution statute was amended in 2025. See Ch. 307, sec. 1, § 18-1.3-603, 2025 Colo. Sess. Laws 1606-07. The opinion cites to the version of the statute in effect at the time of I.A.D.’s sentencing and restitution hearings. 2  when he was arrested, but she “never got the keys” back. After the theft, she and her boyfriend ordered a new key, which she paid for. She acknowledged that the original worksheet showed the cost of the key as $380, but she explained that she had transposed the numbers, and the actual cost was $308.95. ¶8 At the conclusion of the hearing, the court ordered I.A.D. to pay $408.95 in restitution to the car owner. II. The Restitutio