Abraham HAGOS v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado

<div data-spec-version="0.0.3dev" data-generated-on="2024-06-03">
 <div class="generated-from-iceberg vlex-toc">
 <link href="https://doc-stylesheets.vlex.com/ldml-xml.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"></link>
 <div class="ldml-decision"><div class="ldml-decision"><div href="/vid/895257365" data-vids="895257365" class="ldml-header header ldml-header content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Header"><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-cite"><b class="ldml-bold">288 P.3d 116</b></span></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-cite"><b class="ldml-bold">2012 CO 63</b></span></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-party"><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-name">Abraham HAGOS</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Petitioner</span></b></span></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold">v.</b><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Respondent</span></span>.</b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-cite">No. 10SC424</span>.</b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-court">Supreme Court of Colorado</span>, En Banc.</b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-date">Nov. 5, 2012</span>.</b></p></div><p data-paragraph-id="157" class="ldml-paragraph d-none"> <span data-paragraph-id="157" data-sentence-id="158" class="ldml-sentence">OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE<span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-vol="288" data-val="117" data-rep="P.3d" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-id="pagenumber_182"></span></span></p><div class="ldml-counsel header ldml-header content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Counsel"><p data-paragraph-id="182" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-2"><span data-paragraph-id="182" data-sentence-id="182" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-lawfirm">Reppucci Law Firm, P.C.</span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Jonathan D. Reppucci</span></span>, Denver, Colorado, Attorneys for <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-role">Petitioner</span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="272" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-2"><span data-paragraph-id="272" data-sentence-id="272" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">John W. Suthers</span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">Attorney General</span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Elizabeth Rohrbough</span></span>, Senior Assistant <span class="ldml-entity">Attorney General</span>, Denver, Colorado, Attorneys for <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-role">Respondent</span></span>.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-opinion"><p data-paragraph-id="406" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-4"><span class="ldml-opinionauthor content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Opinion (RICE, EID)"><span data-paragraph-id="406" data-sentence-id="406" class="ldml-sentence"><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-entity">Justice <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-judge">RICE</span></span> <span class="ldml-opiniontype">delivered <span class="ldml-entity">the Opinion of <span class="ldml-entity">the Court</span></span></span></span>.</b></span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="454" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="454" data-sentence-id="462" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_462"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 1</span></a></span> In this postconviction proceeding, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> address whether a determination on direct appeal that instructional error did not constitute plain error necessarily requires a determination in postconviction proceedings that trial <span class="ldml-entity">counsel</span>'s failure to object to the erroneous instruction did not prejudice the defense.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="454" data-sentence-id="775" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> conclude that a determination that instructional error did not constitute plain error does not control a determination of prejudice under <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886768367" data-vids="886768367" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_775"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Strickland v. Washington</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">466 U.S. 668, 684–86</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">104 S.Ct. 2052</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">80 L.Ed.2d 674</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1984</span>)</span></a></span>, because the two standards are not the same.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="454" data-sentence-id="1047" class="ldml-sentence">The plain error standard requires that an error impair the reliability of the judgment of conviction to a greater degree than the <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886768367" data-vids="886768367" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_1047"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Strickland</i></span></a></span> prejudice standard.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="454" data-sentence-id="1208" class="ldml-sentence">Hagos's ineffective assistance of <span class="ldml-entity">counsel</span> claim, nonetheless, fails under the separate, fact-specific <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886768367" data-vids="886768367" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_1208"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Strickland</i></span></a></span> analysis</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="454" data-sentence-id="1331" class="ldml-sentence">Thus, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> affirm <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span>' judgment, albeit on different grounds.</span></p><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-parsed="true" data-specifier="I" data-confidences="very_high" data-ordinal_end="1" data-value="I. Facts and Procedural History" data-content-heading-label="I. Facts and Procedural History" data-types="background" data-ordinal_start="1" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" id="heading_1407" data-id="heading_1407"><span data-paragraph-id="1407" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="1407" data-sentence-id="1407" class="ldml-sentence">I.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1407" data-sentence-id="1410" class="ldml-sentence">Facts and Procedural History</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="1438" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="1438" data-sentence-id="1446" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_1446"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 2</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">Abraham Hagos</span> and another man distributed drugs from an apartment.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1438" data-sentence-id="1517" class="ldml-sentence">A buyer broke into the apartment and took a safe containing cash and drugs.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1438" data-sentence-id="1593" class="ldml-sentence">In retaliation, <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-vol="288" data-val="118" data-rep="P.3d" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-id="pagenumber_1609"></span>Hagos and others kidnapped and assaulted the buyer's <span class="ldml-entity">brother</span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="1670" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="1670" data-sentence-id="1678" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_1678"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 3 A</span></a></span> grand jury indicted Hagos for first degree kidnapping, first degree burglary, aggravated robbery, assault in the second degree, and conspiracy to commit each of these crimes.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1670" data-sentence-id="1859" class="ldml-sentence">At trial, <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> instructed the jury, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">“<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[t]</span>he elements of the crime of First Degree Kidnapping are: <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span> That <span class="ldml-entity">the Defendant</span>, ... <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(3)</span> forcibly, <i class="ldml-italics">or otherwise,</i> seized and carried any person from one place to another.”</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="1670" data-sentence-id="2081" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">Emphasis added</span>)</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1670" data-sentence-id="2099" class="ldml-sentence">Hagos did not object to this instruction.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1670" data-sentence-id="2141" class="ldml-sentence">The jury returned guilty verdicts for first degree kidnapping; first degree burglary; felony menacing; and conspiracy to commit second degree kidnapping, first degree burglary, and felony menacing.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="2338" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="2338" data-sentence-id="2346" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_2346"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 4</span></a></span> Hagos appealed and <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span> affirmed.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="2338" data-sentence-id="2400" class="ldml-sentence">Among other claims, Hagos asserted that <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> committed plain error by including the words <span class="ldml-quotation quote">“or otherwise”</span> in its instruction on first degree kidnapping.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="2338" data-sentence-id="2563" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The court of appeals</span> concluded that the instruction was erroneous, but the error did not constitute plain error because it did not so undermine the fundamental fairness of the trial as to cast serious doubt on the reliability of the conviction.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="2338" data-sentence-id="2808" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The court of appeals</span> reached this conclusion because it determined that the record contained overwhelming and undisputed evidence that the kidnapping occurred by force.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="2976" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="2976" data-sentence-id="2984" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_2984"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 5</span></a></span> Hagos then filed a <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_2984"><span class="ldml-cite">Crim. P. 35<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(c)</span></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">postconviction motion</span> in <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="2976" data-sentence-id="3064" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">He</span> asserted, among other contentions, that his trial <span class="ldml-entity">counsel</span> had provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to the erroneous instruction.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="2976" data-sentence-id="3212" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The trial court</span> denied the motion.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="2976" data-sentence-id="3247" class="ldml-sentence">It determined that Hagos could not establish the prejudice component of the ineffective assistance claim because <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span> had held on direct appeal that the erroneous instruction did not warrant reversal under plain error analysis.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="3490" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="3490" data-sentence-id="3498" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_3498"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 6</span></a></span> Hagos appealed the order denying his <span class="ldml-entity">postconviction motion</span> and <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span> affirmed.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="3490" data-sentence-id="3596" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The court of appeals</span> followed <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889425715" data-vids="889425715" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_3596"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Villarreal</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">231 P.3d 29, 34</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.App.</span><span class="ldml-date">2009</span>)</span></a></span>, which determined that the prejudice component of a plain error analysis is essentially identical to the prejudice component of an ineffective assistance of <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity">counsel</span> analysis</span> under <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886768367" data-vids="886768367" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_3596"><span class="ldml-refname">Strickland</span></a></span>.</i></span> <span data-paragraph-id="3490" data-sentence-id="3872" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The court of appeals</span> therefore held that Hagos's claim failed as a matter of law because it was defeated by the determination on direct appeal under plain error analysis that no prejudice occurred.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="4069" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="4069" data-sentence-id="4077" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_4077"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 7</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">We</span> granted certiorari to decide whether a determination on direct appeal that instructional error did not constitute plain error necessarily requires a determination in postconviction proceedings that trial <span class="ldml-entity">counsel</span>'s failure to object to the erroneous instruction did not prejudice the defense.<a href="#note-fn0" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fn0">1</a></span></p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-parsed="true" data-specifier="II" data-ordinal_end="2" data-value="II. Error Standards in Criminal Appeals" data-content-heading-label="II. Error Standards in Criminal Appeals" data-ordinal_start="2" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" id="heading_4375" data-id="heading_4375"><span data-paragraph-id="4375" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="4375" data-sentence-id="4375" class="ldml-sentence">II.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="4375" data-sentence-id="4379" class="ldml-sentence">Error Standards in Criminal Appeals</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="4414" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="4414" data-sentence-id="4422" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_4422"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 8</span></a></span> Before addressing the difference between plain error and ineffective assistance of <span class="ldml-entity">counsel</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> describe, as useful context, the various error doctrines that dictate reversal of a conviction in criminal appeals.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="4636" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="4636" data-sentence-id="4644" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_4644"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 9</span></a></span> Appellate courts</span> in Colorado employ one of five different standards to determine whether an error in criminal proceedings necessitates reversal of the judgment of conviction.<a href="#note-fn1" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fn1">2</a></span> <span data-paragraph-id="4636" data-sentence-id="4823" class="ldml-sentence">These five standards differ by the degree to which <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> require that the error impair the reliability of the judgment of conviction.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="4636" data-sentence-id="4956" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> now describe these five types of review:</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="4999" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="4999" data-sentence-id="5007" class="ldml-sentence">• Structural error;</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="5026" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="5026" data-sentence-id="5034" class="ldml-sentence">• Constitutional harmless error;<span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-vol="288" data-val="119" data-rep="P.3d" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-id="pagenumber_5066"></span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="5066" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="5066" data-sentence-id="5074" class="ldml-sentence">• Harmless error;</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="5091" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="5091" data-sentence-id="5099" class="ldml-sentence">• Claims where the effect on the conviction is constitutionally material to the claim itself; and</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="5196" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="5196" data-sentence-id="5204" class="ldml-sentence">• Plain error.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="5218" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="5218" data-sentence-id="5227" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_5227"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 10</span></a></span> First, certain errors are structural errors, which require automatic reversal without individualized analysis of how the error impairs the reliability of the judgment of conviction.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5218" data-sentence-id="5414" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890849305" data-vids="890849305" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_5227"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Neder v. United States</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">527 U.S. 1, 8</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">119 S.Ct. 1827</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">144 L.Ed.2d 35</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1999</span>)</span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890751806" data-vids="890751806" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_5227"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Blecha v. People</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">962 P.2d 931, 942</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span><span class="ldml-date">1998</span>)</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5218" data-sentence-id="5541" class="ldml-sentence">Examples of these errors include: complete deprivation of <span class="ldml-entity">counsel</span>, trial before a biased judge, unlawful exclusion of members of <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span>'s race from a grand jury, denial of the right to self-representation, and denial of the right to a public trial.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5218" data-sentence-id="5797" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890849305" data-vids="890849305" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_5541"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Neder</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">527 U.S. at 8</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">119 S.Ct. 1827</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-opinionnote">collecting <span class="ldml-entity">cases</span></span>)</span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="5853" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="5853" data-sentence-id="5862" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_5862"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 11</span></a></span> Second, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> review trial errors of constitutional dimension that were preserved by objection for constitutional harmless error.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5853" data-sentence-id="5994" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888440822" data-vids="888440822" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_5862"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Krutsinger v. People</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">219 P.3d 1054, 1058</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span><span class="ldml-date">2009</span>)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5853" data-sentence-id="6049" class="ldml-sentence">These errors require reversal unless the reviewing <span class="ldml-entity">court</span> is <span class="ldml-quotation quote">“able to declare a belief that <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[the error]</span> was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="5853" data-sentence-id="6193" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_6049" data-refglobal="case:chapmanvcalifornia,386us18,24,87sct824,17led2d705,87sct824,17led2d70587sct824,17led2d705"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Chapman v. California</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">386 U.S. 18, 24</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">87 S.Ct. 824</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">17 L.Ed.2d 705</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1967</span>)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5853" data-sentence-id="6270" class="ldml-sentence">In other words, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> reverse if <span class="ldml-quotation quote">“there is a reasonable <i class="ldml-italics">possibility</i> that the <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[error]</span> might have contributed to the conviction.”</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="5853" data-sentence-id="6395" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_6270" data-refglobal="case:chapmanvcalifornia,386us18,24,87sct824,17led2d705,87sct824,17led2d70587sct824,17led2d705"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">emphasis added</span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888440822" data-vids="888440822" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_6270"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Krutsinger</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">219 P.3d at 1058</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5853" data-sentence-id="6447" class="ldml-sentence">For this kind of error, <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> bears the burden of proving the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5853" data-sentence-id="6559" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_6602,sentence_6447" data-refglobal="case:chapmanvcalifornia,386us18,24,87sct824,17led2d705,87sct824,17led2d70587sct824,17led2d705"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Chapman</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">386 U.S. at 24</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">87 S.Ct. 824</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">“Certainly error, constitutional error, in illegally admitting highly prejudicial evidence or comments, casts on someone other than the person prejudiced by it a burden to show that it was harmless.</span> <span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">It is for that reason that the original common-law harmless-error rule put the burden on the beneficiary of the error either to prove that there was no injury or to suffer a reversal of his erroneously obtained judgment.”</span></span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_7050,sentence_6447" data-refglobal="case:chapmanvcalifornia,386us18,24,87sct824,17led2d705,87sct824,17led2d70587sct824,17led2d705"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">id.</i> at 26</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">87 S.Ct. 824</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">“Under <span class="ldml-entity">these circumstances</span>, it is completely impossible for <span class="ldml-entity">us</span> to say that <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> has demonstrated, beyond a reasonable doubt, that <span class="ldml-entity">the prosecutor</span>'s comments and the trial judge's instruction did not contribute to <span class="ldml-entity">petitioners</span>' convictions.”</span></span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">see also</span> </i><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/891644986" data-vids="891644986" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_7391,sentence_6447"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Kimmelman v. Morrison</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">477 U.S. 365, 382 n. 7</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">106 S.Ct. 2574</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">91 L.Ed.2d 305</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1986</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-relatingauthority">noting</span> that the constitutional harmless error <span class="ldml-entity">standard of <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_6447" data-refglobal="case:chapmanvcalifornia,386us18,24,87sct824,17led2d705,87sct824,17led2d70587sct824,17led2d705"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Chapman</i></span></a></span></span> requires <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> to prove that <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span> was not prejudiced by the error</span>)</span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="7537" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="7537" data-sentence-id="7546" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7546"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 12</span></a></span> Third, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> review nonconstitutional trial errors that were preserved by objection for harmless error.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7537" data-sentence-id="7652" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7546"><span class="ldml-cite">Crim. P. 52<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span></span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887212575" data-vids="887212575" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7546"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Tevlin v. People</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">715 P.2d 338, 341–42</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span><span class="ldml-date">1986</span>)</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7537" data-sentence-id="7720" class="ldml-sentence">Under this standard, reversal is required only if the error affects the substantial rights of <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7537" data-sentence-id="7827" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7720"><span class="ldml-cite">Crim. P. 52<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span></span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887212575" data-vids="887212575" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7720"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Tevlin</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">715 P.2d at 342</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7537" data-sentence-id="7868" class="ldml-sentence">That is, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> reverse if the error <span class="ldml-quotation quote">“substantially influenced the verdict or affected the fairness of the trial proceedings.”</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="7537" data-sentence-id="7991" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887212575" data-vids="887212575" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7868"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Tevlin</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">715 P.2d at 342</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7537" data-sentence-id="8016" class="ldml-sentence">Reversal is more difficult to obtain under this standard than under the constitutional harmless error standard because this standard requires that the error impair the reliability of the judgment of conviction to a greater degree than the constitutional harmless error standard requires.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7537" data-sentence-id="8304" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888440822" data-vids="888440822" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_8338,sentence_8016"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Krutsinger</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">219 P.3d at 1058</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-relatingauthority">stating</span> that nonconstitutional harmless error more readily produces a finding of harmlessness than constitutional harmless error</span>)</span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="8468" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="8468" data-sentence-id="8477" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8477"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 13</span></a></span> Fourth, for certain types of claims, including ineffective assistance of <span class="ldml-entity">counsel</span>, the effect of the error upon the proceedings is constitutionally material to the claim itself.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="8468" data-sentence-id="8659" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/884869426" data-vids="884869426" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8477"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Delaware v. Van Arsdall</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">475 U.S. 673, 679–80</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">106 S.Ct. 1431</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">89 L.Ed.2d 674</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1986</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">citing</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886768367" data-vids="886768367" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8477"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Strickland</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">466 U.S. at 671–701</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">104 S.Ct. 2052</span></a></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="8468" data-sentence-id="8802" class="ldml-sentence">That is, these claims <span class="ldml-quotation quote">“by their nature require a showing of prejudice with respect to the trial as a whole.”</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="8468" data-sentence-id="8911" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/884869426" data-vids="884869426" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8802"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="8468" data-sentence-id="8915" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">A defendant</span> can therefore succeed on a claim for ineffective assistance of <span class="ldml-entity">counsel</span> only by showing that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">“there is a reasonable probability that, but for <span class="ldml-entity">counsel</span>'s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="8468" data-sentence-id="9158" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889956318" data-vids="889956318" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8915"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Ardolino v. People</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">69 P.3d 73, 76</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span><span class="ldml-date">2003</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">citing</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886768367" data-vids="886768367" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8915"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Strickland</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">466 U.S. at 694</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">104 S.Ct. 2052</span></a></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="8468" data-sentence-id="9259" class="ldml-sentence">Satisfaction of this standard is more difficult than reversal under the harmless error standard because this standard requires that the error impair the reliability of <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-vol="288" data-val="120" data-rep="P.3d" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-id="pagenumber_9427"></span>the judgment of conviction to a greater degree than the harmless error standard requires.</span> <a href="#note-fn2" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fn2">3</a><span data-paragraph-id="8468" data-sentence-id="9517" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888440822" data-vids="888440822" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9259"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Krutsinger</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">219 P.3d at 1060</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">citing</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/892317000" data-vids="892317000" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9259"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Kyles v. Whitley</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">514 U.S. 419, 436</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">115 S.Ct. 1555</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">131 L.Ed.2d 490</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1995</span>)</span></a></span>)</span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="9631" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="9631" data-sentence-id="9640" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9640"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 14</span></a></span> Finally, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> review all other errors, constitutional and nonconstitutional, that were not preserved by objection for plain error.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9631" data-sentence-id="9774" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/892377007" data-vids="892377007" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9640"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Miller</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">113 P.3d 743, 748–50</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span><span class="ldml-date">2005</span>)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9631" data-sentence-id="9826" class="ldml-sentence">Plain error is obvious and substantial.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9631" data-sentence-id="9866" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/892377007" data-vids="892377007" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9826"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i> at 750</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9631" data-sentence-id="9878" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> reverse under plain error review only if the error <span class="ldml-quotation quote">“so undermined the fundamental fairness of the trial itself so as to cast serious doubt on the reliability of the judgment of conviction.”</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="9631" data-sentence-id="10071" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/892377007" data-vids="892377007" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9878"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888188316" data-vids="888188316" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9878"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Sepulveda</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">65 P.3d 1002, 1006</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span><span class="ldml-date">2003</span>)</span></a></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9631" data-sentence-id="10138" class="ldml-sentence">Because this standard was formulated to permit <span class="ldml-entity">an appellate court</span> to correct <span class="ldml-quotation quote">“particularly egregious errors,”</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887779124" data-vids="887779124" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10138"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Wilson v. People</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">743 P.2d 415, 420</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span><span class="ldml-date">1987</span>)</span></a></span>, the error must impair the reliability of the judgment of conviction to a greater degree than under harmless error to warrant reversal.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="10431" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="10431" data-sentence-id="10439" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10439"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 15</span></a></span> Having placed the plain error and ineffective assistance of <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity">counsel</span> standards</span> in context, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> address whether plain error requires a showing that the error impair the reliability of the conviction to a greater degree than the <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886768367" data-vids="886768367" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10439"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Strickland</i></span></a></span> prejudice standard.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-parsed="true" data-specifier="III" data-ordinal_end="3" data-value="III. Plain Error and Strickland Prejudice" data-content-heading-label="III. Plain Error and Strickland Prejudice" data-ordinal_start="3" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" id="heading_10699" data-id="heading_10699"><span data-paragraph-id="10699" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="10699" data-sentence-id="10699" class="ldml-sentence">III.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="10699" data-sentence-id="10704" class="ldml-sentence">Plain Error and <i class="ldml-italics">Strickland</i> Prejudice</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="10740" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="10740" data-sentence-id="10748" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10748"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 16</span></a></span> If plain error requires that an error impair the reliability of the judgment of conviction to a greater degree than <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886768367" data-vids="886768367" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10748"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Strickland</i></span></a></span> prejudice, then a determination that the error did not constitute plain error does not control the determination of whether <span class="ldml-entity">a defendant</span> can establish <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886768367" data-vids="886768367" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10748"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Strickland</i></span></a></span> prejudice.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="10740" data-sentence-id="11052" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> conclude that plain error requires a greater degree of harm in order for reversal to be warranted.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="11153" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="11153" data-sentence-id="11162" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11162"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 17 A</span></a></span> criminal <span class="ldml-entity">defendant</span> is constitutionally entitled to effective assistance from his <span class="ldml-entity">counsel</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="11153" data-sentence-id="11259" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886768367" data-vids="886768367" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11162"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Strickland</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">466 U.S. at 687</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">104 S.Ct. 2052</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="11153" data-sentence-id="11304" class="ldml-sentence">To succeed on a claim of ineffective assistance of <span class="ldml-entity">counsel</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">a defendant</span> must show <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span> that his <span class="ldml-entity">counsel</span>'s performance was deficient and <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span> that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="11153" data-sentence-id="11498" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889956318" data-vids="889956318" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11304"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Ardolino</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">69 P.3d at 76</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="11153" data-sentence-id="11523" class="ldml-sentence">To satisfy the prejudice component of <span class="ldml-entity">the <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886768367" data-vids="886768367" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11523"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Strickland</i></span></a></span> test</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span> must show that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">“there is a reasonable probability that, but for <span class="ldml-entity">counsel</span>'s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="11153" data-sentence-id="11750" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889956318" data-vids="889956318" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11523"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">citing</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886768367" data-vids="886768367" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11523"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Strickland</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">466 U.S. at 694</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">104 S.Ct. 2052</span></a></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="11153" data-sentence-id="11808" class="ldml-sentence">A reasonable probability means a <span class="ldml-quotation quote">“probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.”</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="11153" data-sentence-id="11906" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889956318" data-vids="889956318" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11808"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">citing</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886768367" data-vids="886768367" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11808"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Strickland</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">466 U.S. at 694</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">104 S.Ct. 2052</span></a></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="11153" data-sentence-id="11964" class="ldml-sentence">The word <span class="ldml-quotation quote">“probability”</span> does not require <span class="ldml-entity">a defendant</span> to show that the deficient performance more likely than not altered the outcome of <span class="ldml-entity">the case</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="11153" data-sentence-id="12109" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886768367" data-vids="886768367" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11964"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Strickland</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">466 U.S. at 693</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">104 S.Ct. 2052</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="12153" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="12153" data-sentence-id="12162" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_12162"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 18</span></a></span> Plain error addresses error that is both <span class="ldml-quotation quote">“obvious and substantial.”</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="12153" data-sentence-id="12235" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/892377007" data-vids="892377007" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_12162"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Miller</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">113 P.3d at 750</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12153" data-sentence-id="12260" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> have recognized plain error as those errors that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">“so undermined the fundamental fairness of the trial itself as to cast serious doubt on the reliability of the judgment of conviction.”</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="12153" data-sentence-id="12448" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887779124" data-vids="887779124" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_12260"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Wilson</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">743 P.2d at 420</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">citing</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/892025421" data-vids="892025421" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_12260"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">United States v. Young</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">470 U.S. 1, 16</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">105 S.Ct. 1038</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">84 L.Ed.2d 1</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1985</span>)</span></a></span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">see also</span> </i><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/892377007" data-vids="892377007" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_12260"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Miller</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">113 P.3d at 750</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12153" data-sentence-id="12592" class="ldml-sentence">The plain error standard is <span class="ldml-quotation quote">“calculated to temper the contemporaneous-objection requirement in the interests of permitting <span class="ldml-entity">an appellate court</span> to correct particularly egregious errors.”</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="12153" data-sentence-id="12777" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887779124" data-vids="887779124" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_12592"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Wilson</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">743 P.2d at 420</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12153" data-sentence-id="12802" class="ldml-sentence">These errors must therefore <span class="ldml-quotation quote">“seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.”</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="12153" data-sentence-id="12919" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/892025421" data-vids="892025421" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_12802"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Young</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">470 U.S. at 15</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">105 S.Ct. 1038</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/891746006" data-vids="891746006" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_12802"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">United States v. Atkinson</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">297 U.S. 157, 160</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">56 S.Ct. 391</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">80 L.Ed. 555</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1936</span>)</span></a></span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">see also</span> </i><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895485600" data-vids="895485600" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_13115,sentence_12802"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Domingo–Gomez v. People</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">125 P.3d 1043, 1053</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span><span class="ldml-date">2005</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">“A reviewing <span class="ldml-entity">appellate court</span> must inquire into whether the errors seriously affected the fairness or integrity of the trial.”</span></span>)</span></span></span><span data-paragraph-id="12153" data-sentence-id="13241" class="ldml-sentence">.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="13242" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="13242" data-sentence-id="13250" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13250"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 19</span></a></span> Plain error casts serious doubt on the judgment of conviction.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="13242" data-sentence-id="13318" class="ldml-sentence">Deficient performance of <span class="ldml-entity">counsel</span>, on the other hand, undermines confidence in the judgment of conviction.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="13242" data-sentence-id="13424" class="ldml-sentence">The words <span class="ldml-quotation quote">“undermine confidence”</span> reveal that the error in a claim of ineffective <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-vol="288" data-val="121" data-rep="P.3d" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-id="pagenumber_13505"></span>assistance of <span class="ldml-entity">counsel</span> must impair the reliability of the judgment of conviction to a lesser degree than a plain error in order to warrant reversal of the conviction.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="13242" data-sentence-id="13671" class="ldml-sentence">These two standards are therefore not the same.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="13718" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="13718" data-sentence-id="13726" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13726"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 20</span></a></span> The two claims serve different purposes and each requires an independent, fact-specific analysis.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="13718" data-sentence-id="13829" class="ldml-sentence">The direct appeal addresses whether the prejudice resulted from <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span>'s acts or omissions, while the ineffective assistance claim examines whether prejudice resulted from <span class="ldml-entity">counsel</span>'s acts or omissions.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="13718" data-sentence-id="14039" class="ldml-sentence">Moreover, a direct appeal and an ineffective assistance of <span class="ldml-entity">counsel</span> claim ask <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> to assess substantially different errors in the context of different due process rights.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="13718" data-sentence-id="14215" class="ldml-sentence">The direct appeal analysis examines whether an error deprived <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span> of his constitutional right to trial, while an ineffective assistance analysis looks at whether an error deprived <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span> of his constitutional right to effective assistance of <span class="ldml-entity">counsel</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="13718" data-sentence-id="14483" class="ldml-sentence">Because the two claims serve different purposes and each requires an independent, fact-specific analysis, the respective analyses should remain separate.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="14636" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="14636" data-sentence-id="14644" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14644"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 21 A</span></a></span> prior determination, therefore, that an error was not so prejudicial as to cast serious doubt upon the reliability of the judgment of conviction, and therefore was not plain error, does not control a later determination of whether the error undermined confidence in the judgment of conviction under <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886768367" data-vids="886768367" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14644"><span class="ldml-refname">Strickland</span></a></span>.</i></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="14961" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="14961" data-sentence-id="14969" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14969"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 22</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">The People</span> assert that certain formulations in our <span class="ldml-entity">cases</span> of the plain error standard reveal that the degree of prejudice required under plain error review is equal to or below that of <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886768367" data-vids="886768367" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14969"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Strickland</i></span></a></span> prejudice.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="14961" data-sentence-id="15180" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> recognize that <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> have recently used the words <span class="ldml-quotation quote">“reasonable possibility”</span> in connection with plain error review of instructional error.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="14961" data-sentence-id="15317" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893534099" data-vids="893534099" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15180"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Kaufman v. People</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">202 P.3d 542, 549</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span><span class="ldml-date">2009</span>)</span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890757225" data-vids="890757225" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15180"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Weinreich</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">119 P.3d 1073, 1078</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span><span class="ldml-date">2005</span>)</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="14961" data-sentence-id="15421" class="ldml-sentence">This phrase entered our discussion of plain error forty years ago from the <span class="ldml-entity">United States Supreme Court</span>'s formulation of constitutional harmless error review.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="14961" data-sentence-id="15579" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889198358" data-vids="889198358" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15421"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Barker</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">180 Colo. 28, 32–33</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">501 P.2d 1041, 1043</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1972</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">citing</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887766996" data-vids="887766996" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15421"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Schneble v. Florida</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">405 U.S. 427, 432</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">92 S.Ct. 1056</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">31 L.Ed.2d 340</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1972</span>)</span></a></span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">see also</span> </i><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887766996" data-vids="887766996" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15421"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Schneble</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">405 U.S. at 432</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">92 S.Ct. 1056</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">citing</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15421" data-refglobal="case:chapmanvcalifornia,386us18,24,87sct824,17led2d705,87sct824,17led2d70587sct824,17led2d705"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Chapman</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">386 U.S. at 24</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">87 S.Ct. 824</span></a></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="14961" data-sentence-id="15834" class="ldml-sentence">At that time, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> had employed various formulations of the plain error rule, including one using the words <span class="ldml-quotation quote">“reasonable possibility.”</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="14961" data-sentence-id="15966" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887779124" data-vids="887779124" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15834"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Wilson</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">743 P.2d at 419</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-opinionnote">collecting <span class="ldml-entity">cases</span></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="14961" data-sentence-id="16010" class="ldml-sentence">In addition, our <span class="ldml-entity">cases</span> were contradictory on whether <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> reviewed unpreserved constitutional error for plain error or for constitutional harmless error.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="14961" data-sentence-id="16162" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/892377007" data-vids="892377007" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_16010"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Miller</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">113 P.3d at 748</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="14961" data-sentence-id="16191" class="ldml-sentence">But since then, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> have made clear that <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> review unpreserved constitutional errors for plain error, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/892377007" data-vids="892377007" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_16191"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">id.</i> at 749</span></a></span>, and that plain error is error that so undermines the fundamental fairness of the trial itself as to cast serious doubt on the reliability of the judgment of conviction.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="14961" data-sentence-id="16473" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887779124" data-vids="887779124" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_16191"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Wilson</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">743 P.2d at 420</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="14961" data-sentence-id="16498" class="ldml-sentence">The phrase <span class="ldml-quotation quote">“reasonable possibility”</span> in our plain error <span class="ldml-entity">cases</span> restates this plain error standard, that the error so undermine the fundamental fairness of the trial itself as to cast serious doubt on the reliability of the judgment of conviction.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="14961" data-sentence-id="16743" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888665078" data-vids="888665078" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_16498"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Lehnert v. People</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">244 P.3d 1180, 1185</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span><span class="ldml-date">2010</span>)</span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893534099" data-vids="893534099" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_16498"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Kaufman</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">202 P.3d at 549</span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890757225" data-vids="890757225" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_16498"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Weinreich</i></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">119 P.3d at 1078</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="14961" data-sentence-id="16853" class="ldml-sentence">Our use of the phrase does not mean that plain error review requires a showing that the reliability of the judgment of conviction is impaired to the same degree as harmless error.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="14961" data-sentence-id="17033" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">Compare</span> </i><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/892377007" data-vids="892377007" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_17066,sentence_16853"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Miller</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">113 P.3d at 749</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">reversal required if the error casts serious doubt upon the reliability of the judgment of conviction</span>)</span></span>, with <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_17214" data-refglobal="case:chapmanvcalifornia,386us18,24,87sct824,17led2d705,87sct824,17led2d70587sct824,17led2d705"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Chapman</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">386 U.S. at 24</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">87 S.Ct. 824</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">reversal required unless the reviewing <span class="ldml-entity">court</span> can declare a belief that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt</span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="14961" data-sentence-id="17336" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> reaffirm the <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887779124" data-vids="887779124" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_17336"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Wilson</i></span></a></span> formulation of the plain error standard—that is, those errors that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">“so undermined the fundamental fairness of the trial itself as to cast serious doubt on the reliability of the judgment of conviction.”</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="14961" data-sentence-id="17562" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887779124" data-vids="887779124" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_17336"><span class="ldml-cite">743 P.2d at 420</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">citing</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/892025421" data-vids="892025421" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_17336"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Young</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">470 U.S. at 16</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">105 S.Ct. 1038</span></a></span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/892377007" data-vids="892377007" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_17336"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Miller</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">113 P.3d at 750</span></a></span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="17649" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="17649" data-sentence-id="17658" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_17658"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 23</span></a></span> Our conclusion is consistent with the purposes underlying each standard.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="17649" data-sentence-id="17736" class="ldml-sentence">Plain error review reflects a <span class="ldml-quotation quote">“careful balancing of our need to encourage all trial participants to seek a fair and accurate trial the first time around against our insistence that obvious injustice be promptly redressed.”</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="17649" data-sentence-id="17959" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893484287" data-vids="893484287" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_17736"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">United States v. Frady</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">456 U.S. 152, 163</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">102 S.Ct. 1584</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">71 L.Ed.2d 816</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1982</span>)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="17649" data-sentence-id="18041" class="ldml-sentence">Plain <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-vol="288" data-val="122" data-rep="P.3d" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-id="pagenumber_18047"></span>error review allows the opportunity to reverse convictions in <span class="ldml-entity">cases</span> presenting particularly egregious errors, but reversals must be rare to maintain adequate motivation among trial participants to seek a fair and accurate trial the first time.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="18290" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="18290" data-sentence-id="18298" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_18298"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 24</span></a></span> Ineffective assistance of <span class="ldml-entity">counsel</span> claims, however, do not require the same balancing of interests.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="18290" data-sentence-id="18402" class="ldml-sentence">Moreover, effective assistance of <span class="ldml-entity">counsel</span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">“plays a crucial role in the adversarial system embodied in the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_18402"><span class="ldml-cite">Sixth Amendment</span></a></span>, since access to <span class="ldml-entity">counsel</span>'s skill and knowledge is necessary to accord <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span> the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">‘ample opportunity to meet <span class="ldml-entity">the case of <span class="ldml-entity">the prosecution</span></span>’</span> to which <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> are entitled.”</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="18290" data-sentence-id="18694" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886768367" data-vids="886768367" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_18402"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Strickland</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">466 U.S. at 685</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">104 S.Ct. 2052</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/892882423" data-vids="892882423" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_18402"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">317 U.S. 269, 275</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">63 S.Ct. 236</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">87 L.Ed. 268</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1942</span>)</span></a></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="18290" data-sentence-id="18841" class="ldml-sentence">Ineffective assistance of <span class="ldml-entity">counsel</span> thus involves greater protection for <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span> than plain error review.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="18290" data-sentence-id="18948" class="ldml-sentence">These underlying policies therefore support the conclusion that ineffective assistance of <span class="ldml-entity">counsel</span> claims allow for reversal upon a showing that an error impaired the reliability of the judgment of conviction to a lesser degree than plain error review would require.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-parsed="true" data-specifier="IV" data-ordinal_end="4" data-value="IV. Application" data-content-heading-label="IV. Application" data-ordinal_start="4" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" id="heading_19213" data-id="heading_19213"><span data-paragraph-id="19213" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="19213" data-sentence-id="19213" class="ldml-sentence">IV.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="19213" data-sentence-id="19217" class="ldml-sentence">Application</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="19228" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="19228" data-sentence-id="19236" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_19236"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 25</span></a></span> Turning to <span class="ldml-entity">the facts of <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span></span> as established by the record, Hagos's claim for ineffective assistance of <span class="ldml-entity">counsel</span> is deficient.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="19228" data-sentence-id="19371" class="ldml-sentence">First, Hagos alleged ineffective assistance of <span class="ldml-entity">counsel</span> on constitutional grounds because <span class="ldml-entity">counsel</span> did not attack the search of Hagos's apartment.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="19228" data-sentence-id="19516" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The court of appeals</span> properly rejected this argument because the exact same search of Hagos's apartment was found to be constitutionally permissible in a companion case.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="19228" data-sentence-id="19686" class="ldml-sentence">Thus, the doctrine of issue preclusion applied and <span class="ldml-entity">counsel</span>'s failure to attack the exact same search on the identified grounds is not ineffective as a matter of law.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="19851" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="19851" data-sentence-id="19860" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_19860"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 26</span></a></span> Second, Hagos failed to establish any prejudice resulting from the erroneous jury instruction.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="19851" data-sentence-id="19960" class="ldml-sentence">It was never disputed that the victim was in fact <span class="ldml-quotation quote">“forcibly”</span> seized and carried: the victim was beaten, handcuffed, and taken to a car at gunpoint.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="19851" data-sentence-id="20108" class="ldml-sentence">Hagos argued at trial that <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> lacked the mens rea required for a guilty verdict because <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> was merely present to ensure that the victim was not seriously injured.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="19851" data-sentence-id="20271" class="ldml-sentence">The jury rejected Hagos's theory.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="19851" data-sentence-id="20305" class="ldml-sentence">Therefore, the language <span class="ldml-quotation quote">“or otherwise”</span> included in the kidnapping instruction had no effect on the judgment of conviction, and Hagos's <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_20305"><span class="ldml-cite">Crim. P. 35<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(c)</span></span></a></span> claim</span> inevitably fails.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="20478" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="20478" data-sentence-id="20486" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_20486"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 27</span></a></span> Thus, the jury instruction, though erroneous, had no effect on the judgment of conviction.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="20478" data-sentence-id="20582" class="ldml-sentence">Consequently, Hagos's claim for ineffective assistance of <span class="ldml-entity">counsel</span> fails through a separate, fact-specific analysis pursuant to <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886768367" data-vids="886768367" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_20582"><span class="ldml-refname">Strickland</span></a></span>.</i></span></p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-parsed="true" data-specifier="V" data-confidences="very_high" data-ordinal_end="5" data-value="V. Conclusion" data-content-heading-label="V. Conclusion" data-types="conclusion" data-ordinal_start="5" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" id="heading_20720" data-id="heading_20720"><span data-paragraph-id="20720" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="20720" data-sentence-id="20720" class="ldml-sentence">V.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="20720" data-sentence-id="20723" class="ldml-sentence">Conclusion</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="20733" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="20733" data-sentence-id="20742" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_20742"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 28</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">We</span> conclude that a determination that instructional error did not constitute plain error does not control a determination of prejudice under <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886768367" data-vids="886768367" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_20742"><span class="ldml-refname">Strickland</span></a></span>,</i> because the plain error and <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886768367" data-vids="886768367" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_20742"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Strickland</i></span></a></span> standards</span> are not the same.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="20733" data-sentence-id="20967" class="ldml-sentence">The plain error standard requires that an error impair the reliability of the judgment of conviction to a greater degree than the <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886768367" data-vids="886768367" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_20967"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Strickland</i></span></a></span> prejudice standard.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="20733" data-sentence-id="21128" class="ldml-sentence">Hagos's ineffective assistance of <span class="ldml-entity">counsel</span> claim, nonetheless, fails under the separate, fact-specific <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886768367" data-vids="886768367" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_21128"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Strickland</i></span></a></span> analysis</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="20733" data-sentence-id="21251" class="ldml-sentence">Thus, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> affirm <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span>' judgment on different grounds.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="21319" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-4"><span class="ldml-opinionauthor"><span data-paragraph-id="21319" data-sentence-id="21319" class="ldml-sentence"><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-entity">Justice <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-judge">EID</span></span> concurs in the judgment</span>.</b></span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="21355" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="21355" data-sentence-id="21355" class="ldml-sentence"><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-entity">Justice <span class="ldml-entity">COATS</span></span> does not participate.</b></span></p></div></div><div class="ldml-opinion"><p data-paragraph-id="21390" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-4"><span class="ldml-opinionauthor content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Concurring Opinion (EID)"><span data-paragraph-id="21390" data-sentence-id="21390" class="ldml-sentence"><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-entity">Justice <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-judge">EID</span></span>, <span class="ldml-opiniontype">concurring in the judgment</span></span>.</b></span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="21430" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="21430" data-sentence-id="21438" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_21438"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 29</span></a></span> Just last year, <span class="ldml-entity">this court</span> stated that, in order to maintain a claim of plain error, <span class="ldml-entity">a defendant</span> must demonstrate <span class="ldml-quotation quote">“a <i class="ldml-italics">reasonable possibility</i> that the <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[error]</span> contributed to <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span>'s conviction.”</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="21430" data-sentence-id="21644" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/891952269" data-vids="891952269" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_21438"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Tumentsereg v. People</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">247 P.3d 1015, 1019</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span><span class="ldml-date">2011</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">emphasis added</span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="21430" data-sentence-id="21717" class="ldml-sentence">This standard has been a mainstay of our plain error jurisprudence for at least four decades, having been cited in literally hundreds of Colorado <span class="ldml-entity">cases</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="21430" data-sentence-id="21870" class="ldml-sentence">Yet the majority today jettisons this standard as a forty-year wrong turn, all in an effort to show that plain error prejudice is actually a <i class="ldml-italics">higher standard</i> than that recognized for ineffective assistance of <span class="ldml-entity">counsel</span> claims, which require a showing that there is a “ <i class="ldml-italics">reasonable </i><span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-vol="288" data-val="123" data-rep="P.3d" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-id="pagenumber_22147"></span>probability ” the outcome would have been different.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="21430" data-sentence-id="22200" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889956318" data-vids="889956318" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_21870"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Ardolino v. People</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">69 P.3d 73, 76</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span><span class="ldml-date">2003</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">citing</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886768367" data-vids="886768367" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_21870"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Strickland v. Washington</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">466 U.S. 668, 694</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">104 S.Ct. 2052</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">80 L.Ed.2d 674</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1984</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">emphasis added</span>)</span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="21430" data-sentence-id="22357" class="ldml-sentence">Not only does the majority call into question forty years of Colorado precedent, in the process it artificially inflates the difficulty of demonstrating prejudice for plain error, and artificially diminishes the degree of prejudice necessary to demonstrate ineffective assistance of <span class="ldml-entity">counsel</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="21430" data-sentence-id="22649" class="ldml-sentence">Because, in my view, there is no appreciable difference between the two prejudice standards, <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span> was correct in its determination that <span class="ldml-entity">defendant</span>'s ineffective assistance claim fails for the same reason his plain error claim failed on direct review—that is, because <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> has failed to show that the error contributed to his conviction.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="21430" data-sentence-id="22999" class="ldml-sentence">Accordingly, I concur only in the majority's judgment.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="23053" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="23053" data-sentence-id="23061" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_23061"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 30</span></a></span> Both a plain error claim on direct review and a claim for ineffective assistance of <span class="ldml-entity">counsel</span> on post-conviction review require <span class="ldml-entity">a defendant</span> to demonstrate that the error in question contributed in some way to his conviction.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="23053" data-sentence-id="23289" class="ldml-sentence">In the ineffective assistance context, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> have said that <span class="ldml-entity">a defendant</span> must show that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">“there is a <i class="ldml-italics">reasonable probability</i> that, but for <span class="ldml-entity">counsel</span>'s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="23053" data-sentence-id="23512" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889956318" data-vids="889956318" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_23289"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i> at 76</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2003</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">emphasis added</span>)</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">citing</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886768367" data-vids="886768367" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_23289"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Strickland</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">466 U.S. at 694</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">104 S.Ct. 2052</span></a></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="23053" data-sentence-id="23600" class="ldml-sentence">In order to show plain error, by contrast, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> have held—as recently as last year—that <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span> must show that there is a <span class="ldml-quotation quote">“reasonable possibility”</span> that the error contributed to <span class="ldml-entity">defendant</span>'s conviction.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="23053" data-sentence-id="23805" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/891952269" data-vids="891952269" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_23600"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Tumentsereg</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">247 P.3d at 1019</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="23053" data-sentence-id="23836" class="ldml-sentence">A reasonable <span class="ldml-quotation quote">“probability”</span> is a higher standard—thus requiring a greater showing of prejudice—than a reasonable <span class="ldml-quotation quote">“possibility.”</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="23053" data-sentence-id="23963" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See, e.g.</span>, </i><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888440822" data-vids="888440822" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_24029,sentence_23836"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Krutsinger v. People</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">219 P.3d 1054, 1063</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span><span class="ldml-date">2009</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">referring to the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">“hierarchical distinction”</span> between the two verbal formulations</span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="23053" data-sentence-id="24111" class="ldml-sentence">In practice, however, there may be no appreciable difference between the two standards for prejudice.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="23053" data-sentence-id="24213" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See, e.g.</span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888440822" data-vids="888440822" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_24229,sentence_24111"><span class="ldml-cite">id.</span></a></span></i> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-relatingauthority">noting</span> that <span class="ldml-entity">this court</span> has occasionally used the terms interchangeably</span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">see also</span> </i><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894352976" data-vids="894352976" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_24404,sentence_24111"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">United States v. Dominguez Benitez</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">542 U.S. 74, 83</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">124 S.Ct. 2333</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">159 L.Ed.2d 157</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2004</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-cert">citing</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886768367" data-vids="886768367" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_24111"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Strickland</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">466 U.S. at 694</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">104 S.Ct. 2052</span></a></span>, to define plain error prejudice under federal rules</span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="23053" data-sentence-id="24510" class="ldml-sentence">Under either scenario, if <span class="ldml-entity">a defendant</span> is unable to demonstrate plain error prejudice on direct review, <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> will be unable to demonstrate the prejudice required to establish ineffective assistance of <span class="ldml-entity">counsel</span> on post-conviction review.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="23053" data-sentence-id="24743" class="ldml-sentence">Applying this reasoning here, because <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span> was unable to establish on direct review that there was a reasonable possibility that the instructional error contributed to his conviction, <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> likewise is unable to demonstrate on post-conviction review that there was a reasonable probability that his <span class="ldml-entity">counsel</span>'s failure to correct the instructional error contributed to his conviction.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="25131" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="25131" data-sentence-id="25139" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_25139"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 31</span></a></span> The majority rejects this reasoning by finding that the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">“reasonable possibility”</span> standard of plain error review is actually a <i class="ldml-italics">higher</i> standard than the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">“reasonable probability”</span> formulation of an ineffective assistance of <span class="ldml-entity">counsel</span> claim brought on post-conviction review.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="25131" data-sentence-id="25413" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_25139"><span class="ldml-cite">Maj. op. at ¶ 19</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="25131" data-sentence-id="25431" class="ldml-sentence">The majority justifies its conclusion on the ground that the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">“reasonable possibility”</span> formulation of plain error prejudice is simply a forty-year mistake, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_25431"><span class="ldml-cite">id.</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">at ¶ 22</span></a></span>, albeit one that has been repeated numerous times by <span class="ldml-entity">this court</span>, and as recently as last year, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">see, e.g.</span>, </i><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/891952269" data-vids="891952269" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_25431"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Tumentsereg</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">247 P.3d at 1019</span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888665078" data-vids="888665078" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_25431"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Lehnert v. People</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">244 P.3d 1180, 1185</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span><span class="ldml-date">2010</span>)</span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893534099" data-vids="893534099" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_25431"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Kaufman v. People</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">202 P.3d 542, 549</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span><span class="ldml-date">2009</span>)</span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/892377007" data-vids="892377007" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_25431"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Miller</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">113 P.3d 743, 750</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span><span class="ldml-date">2005</span>)</span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890757225" data-vids="890757225" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_25431"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Weinreich</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">119 P.3d 1073, 1078</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span><span class="ldml-date">2005</span>)</span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/885883480" data-vids="885883480" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_25431"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Stewart</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">55 P.3d 107, 120</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span><span class="ldml-date">2002</span>)</span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/891197415" data-vids="891197415" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_25431"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Garcia</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">28 P.3d 340, 344</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span><span class="ldml-date">2001</span>)</span></a></span></span>.<a href="#note-fn3" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fn3">1</a></span> <span data-paragraph-id="25131" data-sentence-id="26036" class="ldml-sentence">The majority suggests that, although <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> have applied the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">“reasonable possibility”</span> standard in numerous <span class="ldml-entity">cases</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> should now look only to the alternative way in which <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> have described plain error—that is, as an error that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">“so undermines the fundamental fairness of the trial itself as to cast serious doubt on the reliability of the judgment of conviction.”</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="25131" data-sentence-id="26394" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_26036"><span class="ldml-cite">Maj. op. at ¶ 22</span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">see, e.g.</span>, </i><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888665078" data-vids="888665078" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_26036"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Lehnert</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">244 P.3d at 1185</span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893534099" data-vids="893534099" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_26036"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Kaufman</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">202 P.3d at 549</span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/892377007" data-vids="892377007" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_26036"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Miller</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">113 P.3d at 750</span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890757225" data-vids="890757225" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_26036"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Weinreich</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">119 P.3d at 1078</span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span></span><i class="ldml-italics">but </i><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/891952269" data-vids="891952269" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_26564"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">see<span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-vol="288" data-val="124" data-rep="P.3d" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-id="pagenumber_26533"></span>Tumentsereg</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">247 P.3d at 1019</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">using only the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">“reasonable possibility”</span> formulation</span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="25131" data-sentence-id="26618" class="ldml-sentence">According to the majority, the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">“cast serious doubt”</span> language suggests a higher degree of prejudice than the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">“sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome”</span> language <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> have used in the ineffective assistance context, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">see</span> </i><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889956318" data-vids="889956318" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_26618"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Ardolino</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">69 P.3d at 76</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">citing</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886768367" data-vids="886768367" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_26618"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Strickland</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">466 U.S. at 694</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">104 S.Ct. 2052</span></a></span>)</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote">“<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[A]</span> reasonable probability means a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.”</span>)</span></span>, and therefore <span class="ldml-entity">a defendant</span> who fails to show the error <span class="ldml-quotation quote">“cast serious doubt”</span> on his conviction on direct review may still be able to show that it <span class="ldml-quotation quote">“undermine<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[d]</span> confidence”</span> in the conviction on post-conviction review.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="25131" data-sentence-id="27238" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_26618"><span class="ldml-cite">Maj. op. at ¶ 19</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="27255" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="27255" data-sentence-id="27263" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_27263"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 32</span></a></span> But the majority's attempt to refocus attention to the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">“cast serious doubt”</span> language of our plain error <span class="ldml-entity">case law</span> is unavailing.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="27255" data-sentence-id="27396" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> borrowed that language from <span class="ldml-entity">U.S. Supreme Court</span> jurisprudence considering the plain error <span class="ldml-entity">standard of <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_27396"><span class="ldml-cite">Fed.R.Crim.P. 52<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span></span>, the federal analog of our plain error rule.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="27255" data-sentence-id="27565" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887779124" data-vids="887779124" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_27396"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Wilson v. People</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">743 P.2d 415, 420</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span><span class="ldml-date">1987</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">citing</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/892025421" data-vids="892025421" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_27396"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">United States v. Young</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">470 U.S. 1, 16</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">105 S.Ct. 1038</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">84 L.Ed.2d 1</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1985</span>)</span></a></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="27255" data-sentence-id="27703" class="ldml-sentence">In a recent case considering the amount of prejudice required to satisfy a claim under the federal plain error rule, <span class="ldml-entity">the Supreme Court</span> adopted the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">“undermine confidence”</span> formulation from <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886768367" data-vids="886768367" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_27703"><span class="ldml-refname">Strickland</span></a></span>,</i> stating that to show prejudice for federal plain error, <span class="ldml-entity">a defendant</span> must <span class="ldml-quotation quote">“satisfy the judgment of the reviewing <span class="ldml-entity">court</span>, informed by the entire record, that the probability of a different result is <span class="ldml-quotation quote">‘sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome’</span> of the proceeding.”</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="27255" data-sentence-id="28170" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894352976" data-vids="894352976" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_27703"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Dominguez Benitez</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">542 U.S. at 83</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">124 S.Ct. 2333</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">citing</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886768367" data-vids="886768367" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_27703"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Strickland</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">466 U.S. at 694</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">104 S.Ct. 2052</span></a></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="27255" data-sentence-id="28274" class="ldml-sentence">In other words, <span class="ldml-entity">the Supreme Court</span> apparently sees no appreciable difference between an error that casts <span class="ldml-quotation quote">“serious doubt”</span> on the conviction and one that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">“undermine<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[s]</span> confidence”</span> in the conviction.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="27255" data-sentence-id="28470" class="ldml-sentence">In my view, nor should <span class="ldml-entity">we</span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="28496" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="28496" data-sentence-id="28504" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_28504"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 33</span></a></span> Importantly, <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span> is about more than simple semantics.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="28496" data-sentence-id="28569" class="ldml-sentence">In the process of drawing comparisons between the two prejudice standards, the majority pumps up the plain error standard, stressing just how serious the error must be to constitute plain error.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="28496" data-sentence-id="28764" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_28569"><span class="ldml-cite">Maj. op. at ¶ 18</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="28496" data-sentence-id="28782" class="ldml-sentence">According to the majority, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">“<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[p]</span>lain error review allows the opportunity to reverse convictions in <span class="ldml-entity">cases</span> presenting particularly egregious errors, <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[and]</span> reversals must be rare to maintain adequate motivation among trial participants to seek a fair and accurate trial the first time.”</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="28496" data-sentence-id="29065" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_28782"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">at ¶ 23</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="28496" data-sentence-id="29078" class="ldml-sentence">By contrast, ineffective assistance claims <span class="ldml-quotation quote">“do not require the same balancing of interests,”</span> and should be governed by a lower standard of prejudice because of the importance of the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_29078"><span class="ldml-cite">Sixth Amendment</span></a></span> right to <span class="ldml-entity">counsel</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="28496" data-sentence-id="29294" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_29078"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">at ¶¶ 19, 24</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="28496" data-sentence-id="29312" class="ldml-sentence">All of this implies that, to use the majority's terminology, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">“reversals”</span> based on ineffective assistance of <span class="ldml-entity">counsel</span> should not be as <span class="ldml-quotation quote">“rare,”</span> nor limited to <span class="ldml-entity">cases</span> where there is <span class="ldml-quotation quote">“a particularly egregious error<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[ ]</span>.”</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="28496" data-sentence-id="29526" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_29312"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">at ¶ 23</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="28496" data-sentence-id="29539" class="ldml-sentence">In other words, the majority suggests that not only are the two inquiries different, but that one <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(ineffective assistance)</span> is easier than the other <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(plain error)</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="28496" data-sentence-id="29702" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_29539"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">at ¶¶ 20, 24</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="29719" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="29719" data-sentence-id="29727" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_29727"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 34</span></a></span> The majority reinforces this message by suggesting that <span class="ldml-entity">a district court</span> must take care to perform a <span class="ldml-quotation quote">“separate, fact-specific analysis pursuant to <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886768367" data-vids="886768367" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_29727"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Strickland</i></span></a></span> ”</span> when determining whether <span class="ldml-entity">a defendant</span> can demonstrate prejudice.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="29719" data-sentence-id="29956" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_29727"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">at ¶ 27</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="29719" data-sentence-id="29969" class="ldml-sentence">In <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span>, for example, <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span> concluded on direct review that the instructional error at issue—the erroneous addition of <span class="ldml-quotation quote">“or otherwise”</span> to the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">“forcibly seized”</span> language of the asportation element of kidnapping—did not <span class="ldml-quotation quote">“cast serious doubt”</span> on <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span>'s conviction <span class="ldml-quotation quote">“<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[b]</span>ecause the record contains overwhelming and undisputed evidence of <span class="ldml-entity">defendant</span>'s participation in the forcible removal of <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[the victim]</span> from his apartment.”</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="29719" data-sentence-id="30415" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_30415" data-refglobal="case:peoplevhagos,no03ca315"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Hagos</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">No. 03CA315</span></a></span>, slip. op. <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_30415"><span class="ldml-cite">at 7</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">2005 WL 3313169</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">Dec. 8, 2005</span>)</span></a></span>, <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-cert">cert. denied</span>,</i><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_30415" data-refglobal="case:no06sc89,2006wl1644001apr17,2006"><span class="ldml-cite">No. 06SC89</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">2006 WL 1644001</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">Apr. 17, 2006</span>)</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="29719" data-sentence-id="30551" class="ldml-sentence">Before <span class="ldml-entity">us</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span> argues that <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span> erred in this conclusion, contending that the evidence regarding whether <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> actually used or agreed to use force <span class="ldml-quotation quote">“was contested, contradicted, and far from overwhelming.”</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="29719" data-sentence-id="30780" class="ldml-sentence">Under the majority's <span class="ldml-quotation quote">“fact-specific analysis,”</span> <span class="ldml-entity">a trial court</span> must reevaluate whether the evidence was indeed overwhelming, or whether it was something less than that such that confidence in the outcome could be undermined.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="29719" data-sentence-id="31003" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_31026,sentence_30780"><span class="ldml-cite">Maj. op. at ¶¶ 19, 26</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">concluding that the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">“facts of <span class="ldml-entity">this <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-vol="288" data-val="125" data-rep="P.3d" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-id="pagenumber_31061"></span>case</span> as established by the record”</span> demonstrate that the evidence regarding asportation was not <span class="ldml-quotation quote">“disputed”</span></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="29719" data-sentence-id="31169" class="ldml-sentence">While <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> have emphasized that it will often be necessary when considering an ineffective assistance claim to hold a hearing on whether an attorney's acts or omissions were reasonable <span class="ldml-quotation quote">“strategic choices,”</span> <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886615144" data-vids="886615144" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_31169"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Gross</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2012 CO 60</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_31169"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 11</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886615144" data-vids="886615144" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_31169"><span class="ldml-cite">287 P.3d 105</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">citing</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889956318" data-vids="889956318" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_31169"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Ardolino</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">69 P.3d at 77</span></a></span>)</span></span>, today's opinion implies that such hearings will be similarly necessary to determine prejudice, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal">see</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895508849" data-vids="895508849" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_31169"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Villarreal v. People</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2012 CO 64</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_31169"><span class="ldml-cite">¶¶ 6–7</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">decided today in conjunction with <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span></span>)</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(affirming <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span> on the ground that <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">“properly conducted a separate factual analysis under <span class="ldml-entity">the <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886768367" data-vids="886768367" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_31169"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Strickland</i></span></a></span> standard</span>”</span> during a <span class="ldml-quotation quote">“full evidentiary hearing”</span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="29719" data-sentence-id="31825" class="ldml-sentence">In the end, in my view, the majority disrupts our well-established jurisprudence in this area without setting forth a convincing rationale for doing so.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="29719" data-sentence-id="31978" class="ldml-sentence">Accordingly, I join only in its result.</span> </p></div><div class="ldml-notes content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Footnotes"><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="32025" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fn0" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fn0">1.</a> <span data-paragraph-id="32025" data-sentence-id="32026" class="ldml-sentence">Specifically, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> granted certiorari on the following issue:</span> </p><p data-paragraph-id="32086" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="32086" data-sentence-id="32094" class="ldml-sentence">Whether <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span> erred when it held that a finding of no plain error in <span class="ldml-entity">Petitioner</span>'s earlier appeal regarding defective ... jury instructions, necessarily required a finding of no ineffective assistance of <span class="ldml-entity">counsel</span> regarding a failure to object to ... the same jury instructions in <span class="ldml-entity">Petitioner</span>'s later <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_32094"><span class="ldml-cite">Crim. P. 35<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(c)</span></span></a></span> motion</span>, thus affirming <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span>'s order denying <span class="ldml-entity">the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_32094"><span class="ldml-cite">Crim. P. 35<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(c)</span></span></a></span> motion</span>.</span> </p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="32511" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fn1" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fn1">2.</a> <span data-paragraph-id="32511" data-sentence-id="32512" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> note that two additional standards, invited error and cumulative error, also govern whether errors will result in reversal of the conviction.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="32511" data-sentence-id="32657" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889862892" data-vids="889862892" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_32512"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Zapata</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">779 P.2d 1307, 1309</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span><span class="ldml-date">1989</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(invited error)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/891972967" data-vids="891972967" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_32512"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Oaks v. People</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">150 Colo. 64, 66–67</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">371 P.2d 443, 446</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1962</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(cumulative error)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="32511" data-sentence-id="32810" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> do not describe them as useful context here because <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> do not govern reversal based on how a single error impairs the reliability of the judgment of conviction.</span> </p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="32983" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fn2" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fn2">3.</a> <span data-paragraph-id="32983" data-sentence-id="32984" class="ldml-sentence">Such a claim cannot be harmless because satisfaction of the prejudice component of the claim necessarily entails the conclusion that the error substantially influenced the verdict.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="32983" data-sentence-id="33165" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/892317000" data-vids="892317000" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_32984"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Kyles v. Whitley</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">514 U.S. 419, 435–36</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">115 S.Ct. 1555</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">131 L.Ed.2d 490</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1995</span>)</span></a></span>.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="33244" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="33244" data-sentence-id="33252" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal"><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fn3" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fn3">1.</a>See also</span> </i><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895313827" data-vids="895313827" class="ldml-reference"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Ramirez v. People</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">682 P.2d 1181, 1183</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span><span class="ldml-date">1984</span>)</span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887054644" data-vids="887054644" class="ldml-reference"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Aragon</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">186 Colo. 91, 94</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">525 P.2d 1134, 1136</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1974</span>)</span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889198358" data-vids="889198358" class="ldml-reference"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Barker</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">180 Colo. 28, 32</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">501 P.2d 1041, 1043</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1972</span>)</span></a></span></span>.</span></p></div></div></div></div>
 </div> </div>

Case Details

Case Name: Abraham HAGOS v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado

Court Name: Supreme Court of Colorado

Date Published: Nov 5, 2012

Citation: 288 P.3d 116

Docket Number: 10SC424.

Court Abbreviation: Colo.