Summaries of Published Opinions, 0122 COBJ, Vol. 51, No. 1 Pg. 88

• Position: Vol. 51, 1 [Page 88]

Summaries of Published Opinions

No. Vol. 51, No. 1 [Page 88]

Colorado Lawyer

January, 2022

November 1, 2021.

FROM THE COURTS COLORADO SUPREME COURT

2021 CO 73. No. 21SA208. In re Colorado Independent Congressional Redistricting Commission. Congressional Redistricting— Constitutional Interpretation—Voting Rights Act—Dilution of Electoral Influence.

The Supreme Court reviewed the Colorado Independent Congressional Redistricting Commission's final congressional redistricting plan pursuant to the Court's obligation under Colo. Const, art. V, § 44.5. The Court concluded that Colo. Const, art. V, § 44.3(4)(b), which prohibits the Commission from adopting a plan that dilutes the impact of a racial or language minority group's electoral influence, does no more than incorporate into state law existing protections against minority vote dilution provided by section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. § 10301, as expressed in U.S. Supreme Court case law at the time Colo. Const, art. V, § 44.3(4)(b) was enacted.

The Court held that the Commission did not abuse its discretion in applying the substantive criteria set forth in Colo. Const, art. V, § 44.3 in adopting the plan. The Court therefore approved the plan and ordered the Commission to file the plan with the Colorado Secretary of State no later than December 15, 2021, as required by Colo. Const, art. V, § 44.5(5).

November 8, 2021

2021 CO 74. No. 20SC491. People v. Roddy.

Restitution—Statutory Interpretation—Procedural Deadlines—Plea Agreements.

In this case, the Supreme Court addressed whether the 91 -day time limit in CRS § 18-1.3-603(1)(b) applies to the prosecution's determination of proposed restitution or to the court's entry of the restitution order. Applying People v. Weeks, 2021 CO 75, __ P.3d __, announced the same day, the Court concluded that the 91 -day deadline applies to the court's order regarding the restitution amount. Here, the district court's order exceeded that 91-day period and was untimely. Although the restitution statute also permits a court to extend the deadline for good cause, the adequacy of the district court's good-cause finding is not before the Court, so the case was remanded to the Court of Appeals on that issue for application of Weeks.

If that finding is deemed adequate on remand, the district court must address the permissible scope of restitution. Therefore, the Court further held that, absent an agreement between the defendant and...