People v. Marceleno

── People v. Marceleno ── Court: Colorado Court of Appeals Date: May 28, 2026 Category: General The summaries of the Colorado Court of Appeals published opinions constitute no part of the opinion of the division but have been prepared by the division for the convenience of the reader. The summaries may not be cited or relied upon as they are not the official language of the division. Any discrepancy between the language in the summary and in the opinion should be resolved in favor of the language in the opinion. SUMMARY May 28, 2026 2026 COA 40 No. 24CA1169, People v. Marceleno — Criminal Law — Sentencing — Assessment of Restitution — Non-felony Conviction Under Title 42 A division of the court of appeals examines whether section 18-1.3-603(8), C.R.S. 2025 — which limits restitution when a victim’s loss is covered by insurance — applies to the defendant’s convictions. The defendant contends that the district court was obligated under subsections (8)(b) and (8)(c) to determine whether the damaged car was covered by insurance before ordering restitution and asserts that the court improperly shifted the burden to the defense to present evidence on this issue. Interpreting section 18-1.3-603(8) as a whole and giving all its provisions consistent, harmonious, and sensible effect, the division concludes that the limitation in subsection (8)(a) — restricting application to non-felony convictions under title 42 — applies to all of section 18-1.3-603(8). Accordingly, the division disagrees with the dicta in People v. Lockett, 2025 COA 1, ¶ 18, that “subsection (8)(a) pertains only to title 42 non-felony offenses, whereas subsection (8)(c) pertains to all types of offenses.” Because none of the defendant’s convictions fall under title 42, section 18-1.3-603(8) does not apply in this case. And because the division rejects the defendant’s remaining arguments, it affirms the restitution order. COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2026 COA 40 Court of Appeals No. 24CA1169 Weld County District Court No. 22CR293 Honorable Timothy Kerns, Judge The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Danny Marceleno, Defendant-Appellant. ORDER AFFIRMED Division VI Opinion by JUDGE YUN Grove and Schock, JJ., concur Announced May 28, 2026 Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, Sonia Raichur Russo, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee Patrick R. Henson, Alternate Defense Counsel, Chelsea A. Carr, Alternate Defense Counsel, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant ¶1 Danny Marceleno appeals the district court’s restitution order entered following his convictions for reckless endangerment, vehicular eluding, and criminal mischief — offenses arising from a high-speed chase in which he fled from police. He challenges the restitution awarded for damage to a car and a gate sustained when he crashed. ¶2 One of the central questions in this appeal is whether section 18-1.3-603(8), C.R.S. 2025 — which limits restitution when a victim’s loss is covered by insurance — applies to Marceleno’s convictions. Marceleno argues that the district court was obligated under subsections (8)(b) and (8)(c) to determine whether the damaged car was covered by insurance before ordering restitution and asserts that the court improperly shifted the burden to the defense to present evidence on this issue. ¶3 Reading section 18-1.3-603(8) as a whole and giving its provisions consistent, harmonious, and sensible effect, we conclude that the limitation in subsection (8)(a) — which restricts its application to non-felony convictions under title 42 — applies to the entirety of section 18-1.3-603(8).