v. Zadra No. 15SC262, People v. Adams, 2017 CO 18

Colorado Supreme Court addressed whether unpreserved double jeopardy claims can be raised on direct appeal and the appropriate standard of review.
Decisions in four cases decided today, including Reyna-Abarca v. People, held that unpreserved double jeopardy claims may be raised on appeal and reviewed for plain error.
Applying Reyna-Abarca, the divisions in Zadra and Adams conducted plain error review of unpreserved double jeopardy claims.
In Zadra, multiple perjury convictions were challenged as multiplicitous; in Adams, attempted sexual assault and sexual assault were challenged as duplicative punishments.
Court affirmed the judgments in both Zadra and Adams and remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Can unpreserved double jeopardy claims be raised on appeal?	Zadra/Adams—claim unpreserved doubles may be raised on appeal	People—claims must be raised at trial under traditional rules	Yes; unpreserved claims may be raised on appeal and reviewed for plain error
What standard applies to reviewing unpreserved double jeopardy claims on appeal?	Plain error review is appropriate for unpreserved claims	Different standard not stated; focus on trial-based objections	Ordinary plain error review governs unpreserved double jeopardy claims
Did the divisions properly conduct plain error review in Zadra and Adams?	Divisions correctly reviewed for plain error	Argue deviation or improper application of review	Yes; divisions properly conducted plain error review
Should multiplicitous convictions be merged under double jeopardy in these cases?	Evidence supported multiple convictions	Convictions arose from the same episode and should merge	Convictions merged where appropriate; judgments affirmed

Reyna-Abarca v. People, 2017 CO 15 (Colorado Supreme Court (2017)) (unpreserved double jeopardy claims may be raised on appeal; plain-error review ordinarily)