People v. Lacallo
2014 COA 78
| Colo. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Defendant Enrique Lacallo and three other inmates refused to leave a common area in the Jefferson County jail, damaged the area, and caused evacuation of jail visitors.
- A jury convicted Lacallo of multiple offenses including rioting in a detention facility (§ 18-8-211) and engaging in a riot under the general riot statute (§ 18-9-104(1)).
- At trial, defense counsel conceded the sufficiency of the evidence on the general rioting charge (stating essentially "they've got me on the rioting part").
- On appeal Lacallo argued the evidence was insufficient for the general riot conviction because the conduct occurred inside a detention facility and thus was not a "public disturbance" under the statute.
- The Court of Appeals applied plain-error review to the unpreserved sufficiency challenge, concluded any claimed error was not "obvious" under existing law, affirmed the convictions, but vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing due to sentencing errors (mischaracterizing the general riot conviction as a "crime of violence") and presentence confinement credit miscalculation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of review for unpreserved sufficiency challenge | Apply plain-error review to unpreserved issues | Sufficiency may be reviewed de novo even if unpreserved | Court applied plain-error review here (error must be obvious) |
| Whether conduct inside a detention facility can be a "public disturbance" under § 18-9-101(2) (so as to support conviction under § 18-9-104(1)) | Location immaterial; disturbance that affects members of the public satisfies the statute (visitors were evacuated) | Jail interior not a "public disturbance"; legislature separately criminalized riots by confined persons (§ 18-8-211) | Did not reach merits: held any error in submitting the issue to the jury was not "obvious," so no plain error reversal |
| Merger of convictions for rioting in a detention facility and engaging in a riot | N/A (People opposed merger) | General riot is lesser-included of detention-facility riot (argued by defendant) | Convictions do not merge: each statute contains at least one distinct element |
| Sentencing characterization as a "crime of violence" and PSCC calculation | AG conceded sentencing characterization error; AG and defendant disputed proper PSCC period | Defendant sought more presentence days credited (including time before warrant service) | Court vacated sentence and remanded for resentencing; directed PSCC to be calculated only for time confined in Jefferson County attributable to these charges |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Miller, 118 P.3d 748 (Colo. 2005) (plain-error framework for unpreserved appellate review)
- People v. Hagos, 288 P.3d 116 (Colo. 2012) (plain error standard and policy considerations)
- People v. Dempsey, 117 P.3d 800 (Colo. 2005) (sufficiency review and standards)
- People v. Bridges, 620 P.2d 1 (Colo. 1980) (recognizing "public" element of general riot statute)
- Meads v. People, 78 P.3d 290 (Colo. 2003) (strict-elements test for lesser-included offenses)
- Leske v. People, 957 P.2d 1083 (Colo. 1998) (discussion of legislative intent and multiple convictions)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1980) (constitutional sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard)