Narrative Opinion Summary
The case concerns an appeal by a defendant convicted on multiple charges, including engaging in a riot and obstructing a law enforcement animal. The defendant challenges the sufficiency of evidence for the riot charge, arguing that the incident within a detention facility does not constitute a 'public disturbance' as required by the relevant statute. The appellate court applies a plain error review, concluding that the claim does not meet the standard of obviousness, as no precedent defines 'public disturbance' in this context. The court also addresses the merger of convictions, determining that the convictions for engaging in a riot and rioting in a detention center do not merge due to distinct elements. The defendant's sentence is vacated and remanded for resentencing, as the court finds an erroneous application of a crime of violence designation. Additionally, the calculation of Presentence Confinement Credit (PSCC) is remanded for correction, with instructions to focus on the time the defendant spent in Jefferson County. The court affirms the conviction but vacates the sentence, highlighting procedural nuances in sufficiency claims and the application of plain error review. Judges Booras and Roman express differing opinions on the legal interpretations, emphasizing the complexity of applying standards of review in sufficiency claims.
Legal Issues Addressed
Application of Plain Error Review in Sufficiency of Evidence Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court applies plain error review to the sufficiency of evidence claims when the defendant did not raise the issue at trial, concluding that the alleged error was not obvious under existing law.
Reasoning: Since Lacallo did not raise this argument during the trial, the court applies plain error review and finds that the alleged error was not obvious under existing law, thus not addressing the merits of his sufficiency argument.
Calculation of Presentence Confinement Credit (PSCC)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The trial court is instructed to calculate PSCC based solely on the time spent in Jefferson County related to the current charges.
Reasoning: On remand for resentencing, the trial court is instructed to calculate PSCC solely based on the time spent in Jefferson County related to the current charges.
Definition of 'Public Disturbance' under Riot Statutesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court finds no plain error in the prosecution's argument that a detention facility can qualify as a 'public disturbance' under section 18-9-101(2), as no Colorado case has defined this term.
Reasoning: No Colorado case has defined 'public disturbance' under section 18-9-101(2) or provided a commonly accepted meaning for 'public,' which would have alerted the trial court to an error.
Merger of Convictions in Criminal Casessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determines that the defendant's convictions for engaging in a riot and rioting in a detention center do not merge, as each offense requires proof of an element that the other does not.
Reasoning: Regarding the merger of convictions, the defendant argued that his conviction for engaging in a riot should merge with the conviction for rioting in a detention center, claiming the latter is a lesser included offense.
Sentencing Errors and Resentencingsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court vacates the defendant's sentence due to the incorrect application of a crime of violence designation and orders resentencing.
Reasoning: The Attorney General acknowledged that the trial court erred by applying a crime of violence designation to the defendant's sentencing for engaging in a riot.