Peo v. Lagunas

── Peo v. Lagunas ── Court: Colorado Court of Appeals Date: May 28, 2026 Category: General 21CA0744 Peo v Lagunas 05-28-2026 COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No. 21CA0744 Weld County District Court Nos. 20CR1152 & 20CR1324 Honorable Vincente G. Vigil, Judge The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Victorino Lagunas, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. ORDER VACATED AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS Division VII Opinion by JUDGE BROWN Tow and Schock, JJ., concur Prior Opinion Announced September 14, 2023, Vacated in 23SC767 NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) Announced May 28, 2026 Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, Marixa Frias, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee Megan A. Ring, Colorado State Public Defender, Dilyn K. Myers, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant ¶1 Defendant, Victorino Lagunas, Jr., pleaded guilty to one count of second degree assault as an act of domestic violence against his former girlfriend, K.S. Lagunas appealed the district court’s order awarding restitution, and we affirmed. People v. Lagunas, (Colo. App. No. 21CA0744, Sep. 14, 2023) (not published pursuant to C.A.R. 35(e)). The Colorado Supreme Court granted Lagunas’ petition for writ of certiorari, vacated the division’s opinion, and remanded the case to this court for reconsideration in light of Snow v. People, 2025 CO 32. See Lagunas v. People, (Colo. No. 23SC0767, Aug. 4, 2025) (unpublished order). In Snow, ¶ 21, the supreme court held that the failure to enter at least one of the enumerated restitution orders required by section 18-1.3-603(1), C.R.S. 2024,1 results in an illegal sentence. ¶2 On appeal, Lagunas did not raise a claim that his sentence was illegal because the district court failed to enter one of the four enumerated restitution orders. But the supreme court’s remand order plainly requires us to address that issue. See Snow, ¶ 24 1 Throughout this opinion, we cite the 2024 version of this statute, as that was the version in effect at all relevant times. The statute has since been amended. 1  (“Colorado jurisprudence allows — and, in fact requires — courts to correct an illegal sentence . . . .); People v. Isom, 2015 COA 89, ¶ 7 (a court has “the power and the duty” to correct a sentence that is not authorized by law, and it may do so at any time), aff’d, 2017 CO 110. Having considered the parties’ supplemental briefs, we agree with Lagunas that the district court failed to enter one of the required restitution orders at sentencing and that he is not liable to pay any restitution. Consequently, we vacate the restitution order and remand for entry of an order under section 18-1.3-603(1)(d) that no restitution is owed. I. Relevant Background ¶3 As a term of his plea agreement, Lagunas agreed that the prosecution could “reserve restitution for [sixty] days.” He also stipulated to “proximate cause for the purposes of restitution.” And he agreed that “[r]estitution . . . as to all originally filed and pled counts w[ould] be as ordered by the [c]ourt.” ¶4 At the providency hearing, the district court reiterated the terms of Lagunas’ plea, including that the prosecution “would be reserving restitution for [sixty] days and [that Lagunas] would be 2  stipulating to proximate causation for the purposes of any restitution requests.” Otherwise, restitution was not discussed. ¶5 At the sentencing hearing, the prosecution did not request or otherwise address restitution. When advocating for a probationary sentence, defense counsel told the district court, “There’s probably restitution going to be coming down in [ninety] days or there will be and he’ll nee