Summaries of Published Opinions, 0618 COBJ, Vol. 47, No. 6 Pg. 102
| Position | Vol. 47, 6 [Page 102] |
COLORADO SUPREME COURT
April 9, 2018
2018 CO 22 No. 17SA247. Gadeco, LLC v. Grynberg.
Physician–Patient Privilege—Implied Waiver.
In this original proceeding, the Supreme Court considered whether the trial court abused its discretion when it found that defendant impliedly waived the physician–patient privilege as to his mental health records by asserting counterclaims for breach of contract, requesting specific performance, and denying the opposing parties’ allegations. The Court affirmed its rule that only privilege holders—patients—can impliedly waive the physician–patient privilege, and they do so by injecting their physical or mental condition into the case as the basis of a claim or an affirmative defense. Correspondingly, an adverse party cannot place a patient’s mental condition at issue through its defenses, nor can a privilege holder do so by denying an adverse party’s allegations. Applying those rules, the Court held that defendant did not waive the physician–patient privilege through his counterclaims or answer. The Court concluded that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering defendant to produce his medical records for in camera review and made the rule to show cause absolute.
2018 CO 23. No. 15SC518. Meza v. People.
Sentencing—Restitution.
Meza petitioned for review of the judgment of the district court (sitting as the court of direct appellate review pursuant to the simplified procedure for county court convictions), which affirmed the county court’s order granting a motion for additional restitution. See People v. Meza, No. 14CV33017 (Denver Dist. Ct. May 15, 2015). The county court ordered the requested additional amount of restitution, finding that the victim had suffered a loss of $936.85 that was not known to the People nor the court at sentencing, when restitution was initially, but not finally, set at $150. On appeal, the district court found that the annotation “RR” on the form guilty plea was sufficient to reserve the final amount of restitution and that the record supported the county court’s finding of an additional loss not known at sentencing; and it therefore affirmed the increase as having been sanctioned by CRS § 18-1.3-603(3)(a).
The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded the case to the district court with directions to order reinstatement of the $150 restitution order entered prior to judgment of conviction. A judgment of conviction, absent a statutorily authorized order reserving a determination of the final amount of restitution, finalizes any specific amount already set. Because the court ordered no reservation in this case, it lacked the power to increase the amount of restitution it had previously set.
2018 CO 24. No. 15SC535. People v. Belibi.
Sentencing—Restitution.
The People petitioned for review of the Court of Appeals’ judgment reversing the amended restitution order of the district court, which substantially increased Belibi’s restitution obligation after his judgment of conviction. See People v. Belibi, No. 14CA1239 (Colo.App. May 14, 2015). Following the acceptance of Belibi’s guilty plea, the imposition of a sentence to probation (including a stipulation to $4,728 restitution), and the entry of judgment, the district court amended its restitution order to require the payment of an additional $302,022 in restitution. The Court of Appeals held that in the absence of anything in the court’s written or oral pronouncements reserving a final determination of the amount of restitution, the initial restitution order had become final and could not be amended.
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals. A judgment of conviction, absent a statutorily authorized order reserving a determination of the final amount of restitution due, finalizes any specific amount already set. Therefore, the sentencing court lacked the power to increase restitution beyond the previously set amount of $4,728.
2018 CO 25. No. 16SA243. Front Range Resources, LLC v. Colorado Ground Water Commission. Designated Ground Water—Anti-Speculation Doctrine—Attorney Fees.
The Supreme Court held that the anti-speculation doctrine applies to replacement plans involving new appropriations or changes of water rights of designated ground water. Here, a private...
To continue reading
Request your trial