Stewart v. People, C-1017

Decision Date25 July 1977
Docket NumberNo. C-1017,C-1017
PartiesCal Leonard STEWART, Petitioner, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Respondent.
CourtColorado Supreme Court

Rollie R. Rogers, Colo. State Public Defender, James F. Dumas, Jr., Chief Deputy State Public Defender, Dorian E. Welch, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for petitioner.

J. D. MacFarlane, Atty. Gen., Jean E. Dubofsky, Deputy Atty. Gen., Edward G. Donovan, Sol. Gen., Robert C. Lehnert, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for respondent.

GROVES, Justice.

We here have under review the opinion in People v. Stewart, Colo.App., 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 sheriff's 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.

Judgment affirmed.

PRINGLE, C. J., specially concurs.

LEE, ERICKSON and CARRIGAN, JJ., dissent.

PRINGLE, Chief Justice, specially concurring:

I would point out that the only relief requested by the defendant here is to recover the $712.11 which was in custodia legis. The trial court found that this money was obtained by the defendant as a result of illegal activity. I agree with the majority opinion that a thief has no standing in court to recover the fruits of his crimes.

CARRIGAN, Justice, dissenting:

I respectfully ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Connolly v. Asbestos Abatement, Inc. (In re Iley)
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of Colorado
    • 17 d2 Setembro d2 2019
    ...the principle that "one who steals or converts property to his own use does not thereby acquire title thereto." Stewart v. People , 193 Colo. 399, 566 P.2d 1069, 1070 (1977). However, even assuming that the Debtors in this case did not obtain title to the funds they misappropriated from cli......
  • Gissel v. State
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 26 d5 Setembro d5 1986
    ...points out that "one who steals or converts property to his own use does not thereby acquire title thereto." Stewart v. People, 193 Colo. 399, 566 P.2d 1069 (1977); First National Bank and Trust Company of Lincoln v. Ohio Casualty Insurance Company, 196 Neb. 595, 244 N.W.2d 209 (1976); Nort......
  • Wilson v. United States
    • United States
    • D.C. Court of Appeals
    • 3 d3 Dezembro d3 1980
    ...followed in principle in state courts as well. See, e. g., People v. Stewart, 38 Colo.App. 6, 553 P.2d 74 (1976), aff'd, 193 Colo. 399, 566 P.2d 1069 (1977) (en banc) (once the state had alleged that funds which were seized from the defendant at the time of arrest and which were in the poss......
  • State v. Eleven Thousand Three Hundred Forty-Six Dollars and No Cents in U.S. Currency
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 7 d5 Julho d5 1989
    ...way entitled to claim the $620 he received as payment for the cocaine" from the agents making the purchase. See also Stewart v. People, 193 Colo. 399, 566 P.2d 1069 (1977), where the defendant could not claim the money received from forged checks. Although the seized property was suppressed......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT