Hagos v. People
2012 CO 63
Colo.2012Background
- Hagos and another distributed drugs; a buyer’s break-in led to kidnapping and assault of the buyer’s brother.
- Indictment included first degree kidnapping, first degree burglary, aggravated robbery, second-degree assault, and conspiracy.
- Trial court instructed the kidnapping element as “forcibly, or otherwise, seized and carried” a person.
- Hagos did not object to the erroneous instruction; jury found multiple guilty verdicts.
- Court of Appeals found the erroneous instruction did not constitute plain error, given overwhelming evidence of force.
- Postconviction Crim. P. 35(c) motion alleged inherited ineffective assistance for failing to object; trial court denied; appellate court affirmed on different grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plain error requires greater prejudice than Strickland prejudice. | Hagos argues plain error and Strickland prejudice are effectively the same. | People argues plain error bears higher bar; requires serious unfairness beyond Strickland. | Plain error requires greater prejudice than Strickland. |
| Whether a prior plain-error ruling controls Strickland prejudice analysis. | Hagos contends prior plain-error finding dictates no Strickland prejudice. | People contends independent Strickland analysis is required. | Independent, fact-specific Strickland prejudice analysis applies. |
| Whether failure to object to erroneous instruction constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel prejudice. | Hagos asserts prejudice from failure to object. | Hagos bears burden to show prejudice under Strickland. | Prejudice under Strickland not shown; instruction error did not affect the verdict. |
| Whether the Crim. P. 85(c) postconviction prejudice standard aligns with direct-appeal plain-error standard. | Hagos argues alignment of prejudice standards. | People argues separation of standards is appropriate. | Standards are separate; direct-appeal and postconviction analyses are independent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1999) (structural error overview; automatic reversal for certain errors)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967) (harmless error standard for preserved constitutional errors)
- Kreutzinger v. People, 219 P.3d 1054 (Colo. 2009) (harmless error; burden on State for constitutional errors)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (defining prejudice for ineffective assistance of counsel)