Court Opinion

ID: 9552084
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:04:35.072128+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:25:34.644115
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE GROVES
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We here have under review the opinion in People v. Stewart, 38 Colo. App. 6, 553 P.2d 74. The petitioner had been arrested and money on his person was placed in custody. The trial court entered an order, the effect of which was that no money would be returned to the petitioner. The court of appeals affirmed. We affirm, but solely on the narrow ground that the petitioner did not and does not have standing to complain concerning the trial court’s ruling.
The petitioner was charged with forgery of checks in the amount of $460. At the time of his arrest he had in his possession the sum of $1172.11, of which the sheriffs office took custody. He pled guilty to second-degree forgery of these checks. The district attorney filed a “motion for restitution” in which he stated that his office was in receipt of numerous checks of a similar nature passed by the petitioner.
The trial court ordered that, of the money so held in custody, $460 was to be paid to the victim of the forgeries as to which the petitioner was prosecuted; and that the remainder of $711.12 should be paid as restitution “to the victims of other checks” tendered to the court. These “victims” were designated, together with the amount of each check involved. “Restitution” was to be made proportionately to the amounts of the respective checks. These “other checks” were in the aggregate amount of $1212. There was no prosecution with respect to any of them.
The petitioner concedes that the order was correct insofar as it related to the restitution of the sum of $460. He has maintained throughout that he is entitled to repayment of the amount of $712.11.
As was stated in Trustee Company v. Aetna Co., 135 Colo. 236, 310 P.2d 727 (1957), “It is elementary that one who steals or converts property to his own use does not thereby acquire title thereto.” The trial court found that the money in the possession of the petitioner at the time of his arrest “was the fruits of unlawful activity being conducted by the [petitioner].” The petitioner, not being entitled to any of the money, has not had and does not have standing to claim the money nor to object to the disposition of it.
*401Judgment affirmed.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE PRINGLE specially concurs.
. MR. JUSTICE LEE, MR. JUSTICE ERICKSON and MR. JUSTICE CARRIGAN dissent.