¶ 91 Last, a limitation such as defendant proposes does not exist, as section 18-1.3-603(2)(a), C.R.S. 2021, requires the court to "base its order for restitution upon information presented to the court by the prosecuting attorney, who shall compile such information through victim impact statements or other means to determine the amount of restitution and the identities of the victims." Because the court acts as the fact finder during a restitution hearing, it has the authority "to determine the weight of the evidence [and] the witnesses' credibility." People in Interest of A.V. , 2018 COA 138M, ¶ 29, 446 P.3d 887 ; cfPeople v. Duncan , 109 P.3d 1044, 1046 (Colo. App. 2004) (resolving inconsistent testimony is solely within the province of the finder of fact). And, to the extent that defendant asserts that the court could not rely on the victim impact statements in crafting its restitution order, he is mistaken.

¶ 20 From these acknowledgments alone, we do not view Rice to have waived the right to challenge causation of the victim's damages for restitution purposes. See People In Interest of A.V. , 2018 COA 138M, ¶ 16, 446 P.3d 887 (noting that "simply stipulating to a factual basis may be insufficient to waive causation where the issue of causation is not specifically identified or discussed"). The general acknowledgments contained in Rice's plea agreement and sentencing statements differ considerably from the specific types of admissions that have characterized scenarios where a court found such a waiver.

See People v. Borquez , 814 P.2d 382, 384-85 (Colo. 1991) (approving restitution order based on uncharged offenses because "Borquez acknowledged her criminal conduct and the resulting pecuniary loss incurred by [the victim] in several written statements and defense counsel tacitly admitted that the plea agreement was based upon a series of thefts"); People in Interest ofA.V. , 2018 COA 138M, 446 P.3d 887 (affirming restitution order based on dismissed counts where defendant "and his attorney signed the written plea agreement in which he stipulated to a factual basis and agreed to pay restitution to the victims of the dismissed counts"). ¶30 We recognize that a defendant may receive the benefit of avoiding trial, pleading guilty to fewer or different offenses, and receiving a reduced sentence in exchange for making full restitution to those harmed by her conduct. Both sides ought to be free to leverage restitution as part of a fair disposition of the case.