People v. Perez
Citations
- 2017 COA 52
- 413 P.3d 266
Syllabus
Restitution—Vacation—Sick Leave—Proximate Cause—Pecuniary Loss. Perez pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of an accident resulting in serious bodily injury. After the court sentenced Perez, the prosecution requested restitution based on the victim missing 55 days of work after the accident, including use of vacation and sick leave. Perez argued that the victim's expenditure of leave was not compensable and that he was not the proximate cause of the victim's losses because he pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of an accident resulting in serious bodily injury but not to any crime establishing that he was the proximate cause of the victim's injury. The district court held that Perez was the proximate cause of the victim's losses and ordered restitution. On appeal, Perez claimed that the district court erred in holding that his actions were the proximate cause of the victim's injuries because it did not make an express finding on the issue. The court's rejection of Perez's proximate cause contention necessarily implied that it found Perez to be the proximate cause of the victim's injuries, and the record supports that finding. The conduct underlying the charge of leaving the scene of an accident resulting in serious bodily injury was Perez hitting the victim with his car. The crime for which Perez pleaded guilty arose from acts that injured the victim. Therefore, there was no error in this finding. Perez next contended that vacation and sick leave are not compensable under the Restitution Act (the Act) because the loss of leave is not a pecuniary loss. The Court of Appeals concluded that expenditure of vacation and sick leave is a loss of employee benefits comparable to lost wages that is compensable under the Act. Lastly, Perez contended that the court erred in calculating his restitution to the victim by five work days. The award of an additional five days of missed work was not supported by the record and results in a windfall to the victim, and must be reduced. Th
Cited by
2 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
22 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- In Re the Marriage of BalansonSupreme Court of Colorado· 2001-06-25· cited 1,454×
- People v. StewartSupreme Court of Colorado· 2002-09-09· cited 1,181×
- People v. LassekColorado Court of Appeals· 2005-04-21· cited 1,047×
- In re the Marriage of CardonaSupreme Court of Colorado· 2014-01-13· cited 908×
- People v. RiceColorado Court of Appeals· 2015-11-19· cited 180×
- People v. SteinbeckColorado Court of Appeals· 2007-09-20· cited 171×
- People v. McLainColorado Court of Appeals· 2016-05-19· cited 163×
- People v. K.F.California Court of Appeal· 2009-04-29· cited 47×
- People v. RiveraColorado Court of Appeals· 2010-03-18· cited 35×
- In Re Ryan A.Court of Appeals of Arizona· 2002-02-12· cited 35×
- Roberts v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado· 2006-02-13· cited 27×
- People v. GrossSupreme Court of Colorado· 2012-10-01· cited 27×
- People v. OliverColorado Court of Appeals· 2016-12-15· cited 20×
- People v. BryantColorado Court of Appeals· 2005-04-07· cited 17×
- Simmons v. StateCourt of Appeals of Arkansas· 2005-03-16· cited 16×
- Alcaraz v. StateWyoming Supreme Court· 2002-04-12· cited 15×
- People v. VasseurColorado Court of Appeals· 2016-07-14· cited 15×
- People ex rel. D.S.L.Colorado Court of Appeals· 2006-02-23· cited 13×
- State v. LoutschCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin· 2002-12-26· cited 11×
- Johnson v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado· 2016-09-12· cited 9×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.