(c) Payment of child support debt order;

(d) Payment of spousal maintenance;

(e) Payment of costs for the crime victim compensation fund, pursuant to section 24-4.1-119, C.R.S.;

(f) Payment of surcharges for the victims and witnesses assistance and law enforcement fund, pursuant to section 24-4.2-104, C.R.S.;

(g) Payment of restitution;

(h) Payment of a time payment fee;

(i) Payment of late fees;

(i.2) Payment of probation supervision fees;

(i.4) Payment of a drug offender surcharge pursuant to article 19 of this title;

(i.6) Payment of a sex offender surcharge pursuant to article 21 of this title;

(i.8) Payment of collection and chemical testing of a biological substance to determine the genetic markers thereof;

(i.9) Payment of a surcharge related to the address confidentiality program pursuant to section 24-21-214, C.R.S.;

(j) Payment of any other fines, fees, or surcharges; and

(k) Repayment of all or part of any reward paid by a crime stopper organization that led to the defendant's arrest and conviction.

(3) When a defendant is granted probation, he or she shall be given a written statement explicitly setting forth the conditions on which he or she is being released.

(4) For good cause shown and after notice to the defendant, the district attorney, and the probation officer, and after a hearing if the defendant or the district attorney requests it, the judge may reduce or increase the term of probation or alter the conditions or impose new conditions.

Source: L. 2002: Entire article added with relocations, p. 1378, § 2, effective October 1. L. 2003: (2)(a)(V) amended, p. 2016, § 116, effective May 22; (2)(b)(III) amended, p. 1014, § 21, effective July 1. L. 2006: (2)(a)(XIV.5) added, p. 19, § 3, effective March 8; (1.5) added, p. 342, § 4, effective July 1; (2)(e) amended p. 1690, § 9, effective July 1, 2007. L. 2007: (2.5)(i.9) added, p. 1700, § 3, effective July 1. L. 2008: (2)(c)(III) and (2.5)(e) amended, p. 1889, § 52, effective August 5.

Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 16-11-204 as it existed prior to 2002.

Cross references: (1) For the legislative declaration contained in the 2007 act enacting subsection (2.5)(i.9), see section 4 of chapter 385, Session Laws of Colorado 2007.

(2) For the legislative declaration stating the purpose of and the provision directing legislative staff agencies to conduct a post-enactment review pursuant to § 2-2-1201 scheduled in 2009, see sections 4 and 6 of chapter 385, Session Laws of Colorado 2007. To obtain a copy of the review, once completed, view Colorado Legislative Council's web site.

Am. Jur.2d. See 21A Am. Jur.2d, Criminal Law, §§ 907-912.

C.J.S. See 24 C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 1556.

Law reviews. For article, "The Problem of Compelling Fathers to Support their Dependent Children", see 27 Dicta 442 (1950). For article, "New Legislation Concerning the Mentally Disabled", see 11 Colo. Law. 2131 (1982). For article, "Review of New Legislation Relating to Criminal Law", see 11 Colo. Law. 2148 (1982). For article, "Criminal Procedure", which discusses a Tenth Circuit decision dealing with extension of probation, see 62 Den. U.L. Rev. 187 (1985).

Annotator's note. Since § 18-1.3-204 is similar to § 16-11-204 as it existed prior to the 2002 relocation of certain criminal sentencing provisions and repealed §§ 39-16-6 and 39-16-7, C.R.S 1963, and §§ 39-16-6 and 39-16-7, CRS 53, relevant cases construing those provisions have been included in the annotations to this section.

The purpose of probation is educational and reconstructive rather than primarily punitive or oppressive. Logan v. People ex rel. Alamosa County, 138 Colo. 304, 332 P.2d 897 (1958); People v. Ledford, 173 Colo. 194, 477 P.2d 374 (1970).

The basic purpose of probation is to provide a program which offers an offender the opportunity to rehabilitate himself without confinement, under the tutelage of a probation officer and under the continuing power of the court to impose a sentence for the original offense. People v. Ledford, 173 Colo. 194, 477 P.2d 374 (1970).

By its very nature and definition, probation means and signifies liberty under certain imposed conditions. People v. Ledford, 173 Colo. 194, 477 P.2d 374 (1970).

Probationary conditions serve the dual purpose of enhancing the reintegration of the offender into a responsible life style and affording society a measure of protection against recidivism. People v. Ressin, 620 P.2d 717 (Colo. 1980).

Void for vagueness doctrine applies to conditions of probation. Court will apply the same constitutional standards to conditions of probation as to statutes. There was nothing vague in the requirement that defendant actively participate and successfully complete treatment to the satisfaction of the probation officer and treatment provider. People v. Firth, __ P.3d __ (Colo. App. 2008).

Surrounding circumstances of defendant's alien status may be relevant to a sentencing court's decision whether to grant or deny probation. Although consideration of defendant's status as a foreign national, in and of itself, is improper, the fact that defendant is in the United States illegally may, under certain circumstances, provide substantial and compelling reasons to depart from sentencing guidelines and deny probation. People v. Hernandez-Clavel, 186 P.3d 96 (Colo. App. 2008).

Trial courts have a wide discretion in imposing certain conditions upon a probationer. People v. Ledford, 173 Colo. 194, 477 P.2d 374 (1970).

Psychosexual evaluation may be required as a condition of probation. Defendant charged with attempted first degree sexual assault who pleads guilty to the lesser offense of third degree misdemeanor assault may be required to undergo a psychosexual evaluation as a condition of probation. People v. Fleming, 3 P.2d 449 (Colo. App. 1999).

A court may impose a variety of monetary conditions in connection with granting probation, including a requirement to make a charitable contribution. People v. Burleigh, 727 P.2d 873 (Colo. App. 1986).

Probation supervision fee need not be refunded. Unlike fines and surcharges, which are primarily punitive in nature, probation supervision fees are part of the rehabilitative process, from which a defendant benefits. People v. Noel, 134 P.3d 484 (Colo. App. 2005).

The trial court's power to revoke an individual's probation for failure to pay restitution does not extend beyond the expiration of the probation term imposed. The restitution statute cannot be read as automatically extending a probation term for collection of restitution checks. People v. Gore, 774 P.2d 877 (Colo. 1989).

Clear purpose of subsection (3) is to provide criminal defendant with notice of terms of his probation. People v. Zimmerman, 616 P.2d 997 (Colo. App. 1980).

But failure to comply with subsection (3) did not require reversal of revocation in and of itself. People v. Zimmerman, 616 P.2d 997 (Colo. App. 1980).

Noncompliance with subsection (4), by failing to provide defendant notice of changes in probation conditions, is improper. People v. Frye, 997 P.2d 1223 (Colo. App. 1999).

The terms of probation must be derived from this section, as probation is purely a statutory creation. People v. Ledford, 173 Colo. 194, 477 P.2d 374 (1970).

The program of probation should envisage only such terms and conditions as are clearly and specifically spelled out in the statutes, and such other conditions as fit the probationer by education and rehabilitation to take his place in society. Logan v. People ex rel. Alamosa County, 138 Colo. 304, 332 P.2d 897 (1958); People v. Ledford, 173 Colo. 194, 477 P.2d 374 (1970).

If an applicant is worthy, his release on probation should not be weighted with terms and conditions having nothing to do with the purpose and policy of probation laws. Logan v. People ex rel. Alamosa County, 138 Colo. 304, 332 P.2d 897 (1958).

Condition of making charitable contribution was reasonably related to defendant's rehabilitation and to general purposes of probation. People v. Burleigh, 727 P.2d 873 (Colo. App. 1986).

Conditions of probation may impinge on defendant's constitutional right to freedom of association when those conditions bear a reasonable relationship to the goals of probation. Trial court was within its discretion in imposing conditions that prohibited defendant, convicted of second degree assault on a client by a psychotherapist, not only from continuing to practice as a psychotherapist, but also from engaging in any type of counseling of at-risk persons or contacting former psychotherapy clients. People v. Bolt, 984 P.2d 1181 (Colo. App. 1999).

Condition of probation imposed by probation officer that limited defendant's discussion in therapy, when defendant was not a therapist or a psychologist licensed to ascertain the appropriate subject matter for sex offender treatment, was not reasonably related to defendant's rehabilitation. People v. Harmon, 3 P.3d 480 (Colo. App. 2000).

Defendant presumed to know that violation may result in revocation. Probation is a privilege, and a criminal defendant is presumed to know that the violation of any term of his probation may result in revocation. People v. Zimmerman, 616 P.2d 997 (Colo. App. 1980).

A court may require a defendant to make restitution or reparation to the victim of his transgression, and to pay court costs and expenses of supervision by the probation office. Logan v. People ex rel. Alamosa County, 138 Colo. 304, 332 P.2d 897 (1958).

Defendant must have ability to pay restitution. The reason for requiring that ability to pay restitution be established before probation can be revoked is to allow revocation only where the probationer unreasonably or willfully fails to comply with the terms of his probation, because before revocation of probation for failure to make ordered restitution payments can be effected, the trial court must find that the defendant had the ability to pay at the time the payments should have been made. Strickland v. People, 197 Colo. 488, 594 P.2d 578 (1979).

Before revoking probation the court must make a finding of present ability to pay under subsection (2)(e). People v. Romero, 192 Colo. 106, 559 P.2d 1101 (1976); Strickland v. People, 197 Colo. 488, 594 P.2d 578 (1979).

It is required that one have the present ability to pay which contemplates that: (1) A job for which the probationer is qualified is available; (2) the job would produce an income adequate to meet his obligations; and (3) the probationer unjustifiably refuses to take it. People v. Romero, 192 Colo. 106, 559 P.2d 1101 (1976); Strickland v. People, 197 Colo. 488, 594 P.2d 578 (1979).

Absent such finding, probation to be reinstated. If the court finds that the defendant did not have the ability to pay at the time of the revocation hearing, it shall reinstate defendant's probation. People v. Romero, 196 Colo. 102, 559 P.2d 1101 (1976).

Court may require defendant to make child support payments. People v. Silcott, 177 Colo. 451, 494 P.2d 835 (1972).

But may not require posting of appearance bond. Nothing in the statutory law on probation expressly or implicitly clothes a trial court with the discretionary power to require the posting of an appearance bond as a condition of probation. Whether a prisoner is worthy of probation should not hinge on his ability to furnish a bond. To permit a court to require such a bond as a condition of probation would enlarge the punitive powers of a court beyond that contemplated by the laws of this state. Logan v. People ex rel. Alamosa County, 138 Colo. 304, 332 P.2d 897 (1958).

Probation cannot be contingent upon partial service of sentence in penitentiary. Since this section does not include a provision for service of a portion of a sentence in the state penitentiary as a condition of probation, a court is not free to impose as a condition of probation any period of incarceration in the state penitentiary nor may any period of incarceration in a county jail exceed the prescribed time limits. People ex rel. Gallagher v. District Court, 197 Colo. 481, 593 P.2d 1372 (1979).

The court may not change the conditions of probation, including the payment of restitution, without notice and an opportunity for a hearing. People v. Stephenson, 12 P.3d 266 (Colo. App. 1999).

Court cannot order as a condition of probation that a qualified retirement plan be liquidated to pay restitution. People v. Stephenson, 12 P.3d 266 (Colo. App. 1999).

To read this section harmoniously with § 16-11-206, the proper standard of proof is a preponderance of the evidence when it is alleged that a condition of probation has been breached, even though the breaching conduct also may have constituted a criminal offense. People v. Moses, 64 P.3d 904 (Colo. App. 2002).

The costs of probation supervision assessed against the defendant should be for the period actually served before revocation, and not based on the probationary period originally imposed. People v. Howell, 64 P.3d 894 (Colo. App. 2002).

Where supervisory period extended by defendant's request. Although this section requires notice, a hearing, and a showing of good cause before a supervisory period is increased, the provisions of this section in this respect are not applicable when an extension of the period of supervision is granted at the defendant's own request. People v. Blackorby, 41 Colo. App. 251, 583 P.2d 949 (1978).

When a defendant agrees to an extension of probation, the defendant does not have a due process right to be advised of or receive the right to counsel before signing the extension. People v. Hotle, __ P.3d __ (Colo. App. 2008).

When a defendant agrees to an extension of probation, the defendant does not have a sixth amendment right to be advised of or receive the right to counsel before signing the extension. A motion to extend probation is not a critical stage of the proceeding requiring the right to counsel because the defendant is not faced with a consequential significant deprivation of liberty and is not entitled to a hearing in the absence of such a request. People v. Hotle, __ P.3d __ (Colo. App. 2008).

When a defendant agrees to an extension of probation, the statutory provisions concerning notice, a hearing, and a showing of good cause are not applicable. People v. Hotle, __ P.3d __ (Colo. App. 2008).

Where defendant consents to an extension of the period of probation, there is no requirement for a hearing or other proceeding designed to assure that defendant is making a knowing and voluntary decision. The due process protections afforded in a probation revocation hearing do not apply to an extension of probation. People v. Conner, 148 P.3d 235 (Colo. App. 2006).

Trial court did not lose jurisdiction over defendant's case when it did not enter the order extending defendant's probation until one day after defendant's probation term had ended. The procedures to extend defendant's probationary period were initiated before defendant's probationary term ended, which included the filing of a motion with the court that satisfied the requirements of subsection (4) while defendant was still on probation. People v. Romero, 198 P.3d 1209 (Colo. App. 2007).

No presentence confinement credit for time spent in halfway house. Where residency in a community corrections facility is imposed as a condition of probation, it does not involve confinement as contemplated by § 16-11-306; thus no presentence confinement credit may be given for time spent at a community corrections halfway house. People v. Radar, 652 P.2d 1085 (Colo. App. 1982).

Condition that probationer not impose his religious beliefs on other people while performing public service during probationary period is neither necessary to ensure that the defendant lead a law-abiding life, nor does it enhance the probationer's rehabilitation. People v. Lybarger, 790 P.2d 855 (Colo. App. 1989), rev'd on other grounds, 807 P.2d 570 (Colo. 1991).

The trial court has broad discretion in setting the terms and conditions of restitution orders, and it did not abuse its discretion in ordering that restitution include the amount paid by the victim in reward money. The court found that payment of the reward was reasonable under the circumstances and would not have occurred but for the defendant's actions. The fact that the victim had no legal obligation to offer a reward and may not have been contractually bound to pay the award was immaterial. People v. Dillingham, 881 P.2d 440 (Colo. App. 1994).

To determine whether a specific geographic restriction is reasonably related to the statutory purposes of probation, the following factors should be considered: (1) Whether the restriction is reasonably related to the underlying offense; (2) whether the restriction is punitive to the point of being unrelated to rehabilitation; (3) whether the restriction is unduly severe and restrictive because the defendant resides in the area and is forced to relocate or is employed or anticipates employment in the area; (4) whether the defendant may petition the court to lift the restriction temporarily when necessary; and (5) whether less restrictive means are available. People v. Brockelman, 933 P.2d 1315 (Colo. 1997).

These factors are not exhaustive but are helpful tools which, at a minimum, should form a basis to guide trial courts in imposing a geographic restriction as a condition of probation. People v. Brockelman, 933 P.2d 1315 (Colo. 1997).

Factors applied and a nexus found to exist between the underlying offense and the probation condition imposed. People v. Brockelman, 933 P.2d 1315 (Colo. 1997); People v. Bolt, 984 P.2d 1181 (Colo. App. 1999).

A district court may, as a condition of probation, prohibit a defendant from having unsupervised contact with his or her children. The court properly considered defendant's parenting history, the severity of her offense, and the necessity to assist her in leading a law-abiding life while affording society and her young children a measure of protection against recidivism. People v. Forsythe, 43 P.3d 652 (Colo. App. 2001).

Trial court had the authority under former §§ 16-11-204 (4) and 17-27-105 (1)(h) (now §§ 18-1.3-204 (4) and 18-1.3-301 (1)(h)) to modify defendant's community corrections sentence before it expired. The court retained this authority after defendant's release date passed because re-sentencing proceedings were initiated prior to that date. People v. Knott, 83 P.3d 1147 (Colo. App. 2003).