residence on a regular basis for several weeks, and that Martinez gave Curtis an open invitation to spend the night at the house. However, these facts came to the court’s attention by way of defense counsel’s offer of proof as to what Curtis would say if he were to testify. Neither Curtis nor any other witness testified at the suppression hearing regarding Curtis’s relationship with the Martinez residence, and the district attorney disputed the accuracy of these statements. Thus, the totality of the circumstances regarding Curtis’s relationship with the Martinez residence is unknown. Given this uncertainty, the record in this case does not provide a sufficient basis for appellate review, and this case must be remanded for factual findings. See People v. D.F., 933 P.2d 9, 14 (Colo.1997) (<HOLDING>). III. We hold that the district- court erred
holding that when the party seeking attorneys fees presents some competent substantial evidence supporting the fee yet fails to include some essential evidentiary support the appellate court will reverse and remand the order for additional findings holding that this court will only set aside district courts factual findings when they are clearly erroneous holding that we will not reverse in the absence of prejudice holding that this court will reverse and remand when appellate review of a suppression order is hindered by the absence of factual findings holding that the district court had jurisdiction to order restitution of award overturned on appeal even in the absence of a remand from the appellate court