High court will consider refunds
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear a Colorado case in which a man and a woman were exonerated of different sexual crimes but then denied a refund of thousands of dollars in court fees and costs.
The court will determine whether those wrongfully convicted of crimes are entitled to reimbursement of certain court costs, said Colorado attorney Robert Fishman, who wrote a brief in support of the appeal.
“This case could have a very practical consequence to a lot of people,” Fishman said.
Appellant Shannon Nelson was convicted in 2006 of five sexual assault charges she allegedly committed against children. Besides a prison term, she was assessed a total of $8,193 for numerous court fines and fees, including $7,845 for restitution to the victims. Her convictions were reversed on appeal.
Co-appellant Louis Alonzo Madden was convicted in 2005 of attempting to patronize a prostituted child and attempted sexual assault. His court fees and costs totaled $4,413, including $128 for genetic testing for sex offenders and a $2,000 sex offender surcharge. His charge of attempted patronizing of a prostitute was reversed on appeal, according to the appeal.
But when the appellants sought reimbursement for these payments on the basis of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, their motions were denied.
A Colorado appeals court said state law required a full refund. But the Colorado Supreme Court overturned the ruling.
“We hold that due process does not require a refund of costs, fees, and restitution when a defendant’s conviction is reversed and she is subsequently acquitted,” the Colorado Supreme Court concluded.
Colorado Justice William W. Hood III dissented, arguing that “because Nelson was never validly convicted, we presume she is innocent. … Just as the state was required to release Nelson from incarceration, it should also be required to release Nelson’s money paid as costs, fees and restitution.”
Colorado allows reimbursement of court fees only if the defendant files a new civil lawsuit and proves his or her innocence, Fishman said. “It’s an extraordinarily high burden,” he said.
In many cases the costs of hiring an attorney and proving their innocence would be more than the court fees, making such a recourse impractical, Fishman said.