Lehnert v. People, 244 P.3d 1180

Charity Lehnert was convicted of attempted first degree murder and possession of explosive or incendiary parts, with the prosecution seeking a crime-of-violence mandatory sentence under § 18-1.3-406.
The jury was instructed with the correct definition of a deadly weapon, but the verdict form said the defendant did not track the statutory language, stating only that she possessed or threatened a deadly weapon.
Evidence showed explosive/incendiary parts but no assembled device; trial court struck the
"device"" definition from instructions and verdict form; jury nevertheless convicted on possessing parts.
Lehnert did not object to the verdict form or sentence at trial or sentencing, and the court imposed a 30-year crime-of-violence sentence plus a concurrent six-year term for the separate conviction.
The court of appeals affirmed the sentence, holding the error was plain or harmless, and this Court granted certiorari to review whether the sentence was illegal under the crime-of-violence statute.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plain error review applies	Lehnert (plain error).	People argues ordinary review suffices.	Plain error review applies.
Whether the crime-of-violence statute requires a specific finding	Lehnert contends the statute requires a specific, separate finding that a deadly weapon was possessed and threatened.	People contends the verdict can be construed from the record to reflect possession and threat.	Statute requires a specific finding; jury must make the explicit finding to trigger enhanced sentence.
Effect of a mismatched verdict form when the instruction is correct	Incongruent verdict form may not reflect required finding; could affect the outcome.	Record shows defendant possessed a deadly weapon; error harmless.	Incongruity constitutes trial error reviewable for plain error; may affect substantial rights.
Whether the error affected substantial rights and warranted reversal	The error led to an above-presumptive-range sentence; plausible that the verdict did not unanimously find possession.	Evidence established possession; error was not outcome-determinative.	Error affected substantial rights; sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing.

People v. Russo, 713 P.2d 356 (Colo. 1986) (jury finding beyond reasonable doubt; standard for factual determinations)
People v. Dist. Court, 713 P.2d 918 (Colo. 1986) (mandatory language and required findings in sentencing statutes)
Moore v. People, 925 P.2d 264 (Colo. 1996) (plain error standard for issues not objected to at trial)
Griego v. People, 19 P.3d 1 (Colo. 2001) (instructional error; burdens of plain error review for misdescriptions)
Medina v. People, 163 P.3d 1136 (Colo. 2007) (structural distinctions and limitations on analogies to plain error)
Vigil v. People, 127 P.3d 916 (Colo. 2006) (plain error vs. harmless error framework for trial errors)
Miller v. People, 113 P.3d 743 (Colo. 2005) (plain error standard for unfou nd issues; when to apply harsh review)