Maestas v. People, 442 P.3d 394

Police responded after a witness saw Maestas ring an elderly neighbor’s doorbell, walk around the house, and attempt to open gates and doors; Maestas fled when an officer confronted him.
Officers later found Maestas hiding in a detached garage whose padlock had been broken; the neighbor’s sliding glass door was also found open.
Maestas was charged with attempted second-degree burglary (for opening the neighbor’s door), second-degree burglary (entering the garage) with intent to commit the crime of obstructing a peace officer, and a related count; he requested a jury instruction on third-degree trespass.
At close of evidence Maestas moved twice for judgment of acquittal on sufficiency grounds; both motions were denied and the jury convicted him on all counts.
On appeal Maestas argued (inter alia) that obstructing a peace officer cannot serve as the predicate "crime" for second-degree burglary under § 18-4-203(1), and that the evidence was insufficient to support burglary.
The court of appeals affirmed after applying plain-error review to the sufficiency/statutory-construction contention; this Court granted certiorari and reversed that portion of the judgment, remanding for de novo review of the sufficiency claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether sufficiency-of-the-evidence claims raised for the first time on appeal are subject to plain-error review or de novo review	Maestas: sufficiency claims (including those involving statutory construction) may be raised for the first time on appeal and should be reviewed de novo	People: the court of appeals treated the unpreserved statutory-interpretation component as forfeited and applied plain-error review	The Supreme Court held that sufficiency claims raised for the first time on appeal are reviewed de novo, not under plain-error review, including when they involve statutory construction (as explained in companion McCoy decision)
Whether obstructing a peace officer can serve as the predicate offense for second-degree burglary under § 18-4-203(1), and whether evidence was sufficient	Maestas: obstructing a peace officer is not a valid predicate for burglary here; thus evidence was legally insufficient to support the burglary conviction	People: trial court and court of appeals implicitly allowed obstruction as predicate; and any error was not "plain" at trial because law was unsettled	The Court reversed the appeals-court affirmance and remanded for the division to conduct a de novo sufficiency review of Maestas’s contention that obstructing a peace officer is not a sufficient predicate for second-degree burglary; the Court did not resolve the statutory question on the merits in this opinion

People v. Kadell, 411 P.3d 281 (Colo. App. 2017) (discusses difference between error-determining and reversal-determining standards and split among divisions on review of unpreserved sufficiency claims)
Hagos v. People, 288 P.3d 116 (Colo. 2012) (framework listing standards that dictate reversal in criminal cases)
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (federal plain-error four-part framework and guidance on remedial discretion)
Henderson v. United States, 568 U.S. 266 (2013) (plain error may be plain at time of appellate review)
People v. Sprouse, 983 P.2d 771 (Colo. 1999) (standard for sufficiency review: whether any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
People v. Poindexter, 338 P.3d 352 (Colo. App. 2013) (concluded obstructing a peace officer cannot be predicate for burglary in similar circumstances)