Opinion ID: 4543084
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Waiver and the Applicable Standard of Review

Text: ¶18 The People contend that Wester-Gravelle waived her present contention because (1) her argument is in the nature of a duplicity claim; (2) pursuant to 8 Crim. P. 12(b)(2) and (3), she was required to raise such a claim by motion within twenty-one days following arraignment or else the claim would be deemed waived, absent a showing of good cause; and (3) she did not timely raise the claim or show good cause. ¶19 Crim. P. 12(b)(2) provides, in pertinent part: Defenses and objections based on defects in the institution of the prosecution or in the indictment or information or complaint, or summons and complaint, other than that it fails to show jurisdiction in the court or to charge an offense, may be raised only by motion. The motion shall include all such defenses and objections then available to the defendant. Failure to present any such defense or objection constitutes a waiver of it, but the court for cause shown may grant relief from the waiver. ¶20 Crim. P. 12(b)(3), in turn, dictates, “The motion shall be made within 21 days following arraignment.” ¶21 Under Crim. P. 8(a)(1), a defendant is entitled to have each offense alleged against him or her “prosecuted by separate counts in a single prosecution.” See also Sweek v. People, 277 P. 1, 3 (Colo. 1929) (“No more than one offense should be charged in one count.”). A count charging the commission of more than one distinct and separate criminal offense is duplicitous. United States v. Miller, 891 F.3d 1220, 1229 (10th Cir. 2018); see also Melina v. People, 161 P.3d 635, 644 (Colo. 2007) (Coats, J., concurring in the judgment only) (“Any count charging the commission of more than one offense is therefore subject to challenge as duplicitous.”); Marrs v. People, 312 P.2d 505, 508 (Colo. 1957) (“To be duplicitous 9 an information must join two or more distinct and separate offenses in the same count of an indictment or information.”). ¶22 Here, the People view Wester-Gravelle’s unanimity contention as raising a duplicity issue, and they assert that such an issue is an inherent defect in a charging document, even when the issue is not apparent on the face of that document. The People thus contend that Wester-Gravelle was required to raise her present contention in a Crim. P. 12(b) motion and, having failed to do so, she waived that contention, even if the duplicity problem did not become apparent until the introduction of evidence during trial. For several reasons, we disagree. ¶23 First, the charge as filed by the prosecution in this case was not inherently duplicitous. The charge as written properly alleged a single count of forgery based on a Home Care Aide Shift Charting Sheet completed between and including July 11, 2015 and July 31, 2015. Nothing on the face of the charging document revealed a defect to which Wester-Gravelle could properly have objected. ¶24 Second, as we explained in Reyna-Abarca v. People, 2017 CO 15, ¶ 43, 390 P.3d 816, 823, “we perceive nothing in Crim. P. 12(b)(2) that requires a defendant to file a motion regarding any error that might later flow from the charging document . . . .” Nor have the People cited any area of law “in which parties are required to take action to preserve an issue before the issue has arisen and before 10 any error has occurred.” Id. at ¶ 44, 390 P.3d at 823. Crim. P. 12(b)(2) simply does not require such prescience. ¶25 Third, to the extent that the People are arguing that Crim. P. 12(b)(2) sprang back into play after the pleading stage and in the course of discovery, they cite no applicable law to support such a theory, and the language of Crim. P. 12(b)(2) is to the contrary. Crim. P. 12(b)(2) is directed to defects in the information or complaint. As noted above, we perceive no such defect here, nor did the information become retroactively defective based on the evidence that the prosecution ultimately chose to present. Simply stated, at the time Wester-Gravelle allegedly knew or should have known, based on the discovery that she had received, that the evidence might present a unanimity issue, the issue was no longer a pleading matter governed by Crim. P. 12(b)(2). Rather, it was an issue regarding Wester-Gravelle’s entitlement to a prosecutorial election or a modified unanimity instruction that could be raised at trial. ¶26 For all of these reasons, we conclude that Wester-Gravelle had no obligation to file a Crim. P. 12(b)(2) motion here, and therefore she did not waive her right to object on the basis of a lack of juror unanimity at trial. ¶27 This is not to say, however, that Wester-Gravelle preserved the issue now before us. She did not demand a prosecutorial election or request a modified unanimity instruction, and therefore she forfeited any such claim of error. See 11 People v. Rediger, 2018 CO 32, ¶ 44, 416 P.3d 893, 903 (concluding that a defendant’s acquiescence to an alleged constructive amendment amounted to a forfeiture and not a waiver, when the defendant’s lack of objection resulted from neglect and not intent). Accordingly, we will review her claim for plain error. See id. at ¶ 47, 416 P.3d at 903 (reviewing a forfeited argument for plain error). ¶28 As we have previously explained, “An error is plain if it is obvious and substantial and so undermines the fundamental fairness of the trial itself as to cast serious doubt on the reliability of the judgment of conviction.” Id. at ¶ 48, 416 P.3d at 903. Generally, an error is obvious when it contravenes a clear statutory command, a well-settled legal principle, or Colorado case law. Scott v. People, 2017 CO 16, ¶ 16, 390 P.3d 832, 835. ¶29 We note that the People have asked that, if we review Wester-Gravelle’s contention for plain error, we adopt the Supreme Court’s articulation of the plain error standard in Olano, 507 U.S. at 732. The People, however, did not raise this issue before the division below. To the contrary, they relied on the same plain error standard that we apply here. Moreover, the People did not seek certiorari asking us to consider whether to adopt Olano’s plain error formulation, and we did not grant certiorari on that issue. Accordingly, the issue is not properly before us. 12