In this decision, a division of the Court of Appeals affirms a juvenile court’s sentencing order, holding in part that the court did not err by not making specific reasonableness findings before ordering restitution. The restitution amounted to $682,600.00. On appeal, the juvenile contended that People in Interest of A.R.M., 832 P.2d 1093 (Colo. App. 1992), required the court to make such findings. In this decision, the Court of Appeals disagrees with the juvenile, reasoning that statutory revisions to the juvenile restitution statute subsequent to A.R.M. removed the language on which A.R.M. relied and “reflect the General Assembly’s intent to remove ability to pay and hardship from a juvenile court’s consideration when ordering restitution.” The Court of Appeals recognizes the inconsistency between these revisions and other legislative enactments “aimed at diminishing the punitive aspects and increasing the rehabilitate aspects of juvenile sentencing,” but concludes it is bound by the plain language of § 19-2-918 requiring the juvenile court to order full restitution to compensate for the victims’ losses.October 4, 2018 Click here to access the case in Westlaw.