Court Opinion

ID: 9885709
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 13:12:40.650245+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:56.392815
License: Public Domain

Judge WEBB
specially concurring.
While agreeing with the majority's disposition of this appeal, I write separately to articulate an alternative rationale-acquies-cenece-for affirming the trial court's decision not to give the lesser nonineluded offense instruction.
In People v. Isham, 923 P.2d 190 (Colo.App.1995), the division held that the trial court's erroneous disqualification of the defendant's counsel did not require that a later guilty plea be vacated as involuntary because the defendant had acquiesced in representation by replacement counsel. The division focused on the defendant's acknowledgement at the plea hearing that he was completely satisfied with the legal advice and services of replacement counsel and did not wish to consult with any other attorney concerning the plea.
Similarly here, after having heard his attorney request this instruction, defendant clearly and unambiguously directed the trial court that he did not want the jury so instructed. He reiterated this position after further dialogue concerning the instruction between his counsel and the court. Defendant does not assert that he lacked competency at the time. Nor does he argue that his direction was based on a misunderstanding of, or misinformation about, relevant law.
Generally, we do not consider on appeal a position contrary to that taken by the party below. See, e.g., Grossman v. Columbine Med. Group, Inc., 12 P.3d 269, 271-72 (Colo.App.1999) ("[IIndeed, plaintiff alleged in his pleadings before the trial court that he was an independent contractor. Therefore, we decline to consider his contrary position on appeal."); People in Interest of R.L., 961 P.2d 606, 608 (Colo.App.1998) ("[Clounsel for the department again 'reminded' the trial court that the ICWA applied to the proceeding. Under these cireumstances, the department may not take a contrary position on appeal.").
*727Accordingly, in light of defendant's direction to the trial court, I would not subject the issue to further analysis.