v. Butcher, 2018 COA 54

Defendant David Butcher was convicted of securities fraud and theft from at-risk adults; the appeal challenges only the amended restitution order.
At sentencing (Feb 2013) the prosecutor submitted a restitution order with spreadsheets showing prejudgment and postjudgment interest; the court deferred a hearing and entered the prosecutor’s order in Jan 2014.
Butcher belatedly objected (14 months later) asserting offsets; the court held a restitution hearing in Sept 2015 and reduced principal by $8,395.44; neither party contested interest calculations at the hearing.
The court entered an amended restitution order reflecting the reduced principal but preserving interest calculations; spreadsheets show interest compounded monthly and postjudgment interest computed “from the time of conviction.”
On appeal Butcher raises for the first time (plain-error review): (1) prejudgment interest should reflect offsets to principal, (2) prejudgment interest should run to the amended order date, (3) postjudgment interest should run only from the amended order date, and (4) interest should be simple, not compounded monthly.
The Court of Appeals found one obvious error (postjudgment interest computed from conviction rather than entry of the operative restitution order) but exercised Crim. P. 52(b) discretion to affirm because the error did not seriously affect fairness, integrity, or public reputation of proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Butcher waived challenge to interest calculations	AG: Butcher failed to timely object and thus waived; also declined to present evidence when offered	Butcher: objections concern legal computation, not factual record; waiver inapplicable here	No waiver; appellate review allowed because interest issues could be reviewed from the record
Whether Crim. P. 52(b) plain-error relief is discretionary	AG: "may" in rule indicates discretion; federal precedent supports permissive review	Butcher: seeks reversal under plain error standard	Court: Rule 52(b) is discretionary; Olano and related precedent permit but do not require correction
Whether the trial court committed obvious error in interest computation	AG: interest was calculable and spreadsheets show method; any error must be obvious	Butcher: postjudgment interest and prejudgment period misapplied; compounding improper	Court: Error was obvious that postjudgment interest was run from conviction rather than the date of the restitution order; compounding issue not clearly erroneous given unsettled law
Whether the obvious error warrants plain-error reversal	AG: even if error obvious, must show it seriously affects fairness, integrity, or public reputation	Butcher: seeks reduction/adjustment of interest based on error	Court: Declined to reverse—error raised restitution liability by only roughly 12.27% and did not seriously affect fairness, integrity, or public reputation; affirmed order

Roberts v. People, 130 P.3d 1005 (Colo. 2006) (prejudgment interest principles and rate for restitution)
People v. Miller, 113 P.3d 743 (Colo. 2005) (plain-error and waiver principles discussed)
Sanoff v. People, 187 P.3d 576 (Colo. 2008) (restitution amount severable from judgment of conviction)
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1993) (Rule 52(b) is permissive and outlines discretionary remedial principles)
United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1985) (formulation that appellate courts should notice plain error only when it seriously affects fairness, integrity, or public reputation)