obviousness rule in Colorado

2016See Orth , 121 P.3d at 257-59 (noting that “a Sixth Amendment violation occurs when, as relevant here, the sentencing court finds facts other than a prior conviction and aggravates a defendant’s sentence based thereon,” but holding that the defendant’s aggravated community corrections sentence did not violate Blakely because the trial court based it on Blakely -exempt prior convictions); see also People v. VanMatre , 190 P.3d 770, 772, 774 (Colo. App. 2008) (same); Hopkins , 190 P.3d at 833 (explaining that in a previous appeal in the same case, a division of the court of appeals held that the

2016See Orth , 121 P.3d at 257-59 (noting that “a Sixth Amendment violation occurs when, as relevant here, the sentencing court finds facts other than a prior conviction and aggravates a defendant’s sentence based thereon,” but holding that the defendant’s aggravated community corrections sentence did not violate Blakely because the trial court based it on Blakely -exempt prior convictions); see also People v. VanMatre , 190 P.3d 770, 772, 774 (Colo. App. 2008) (same); Hopkins , 190 P.3d at 833 (explaining that in a previous appeal in the same case, a division of the court of appeals held that the

2016See Orth , 121 P.3d at 257-59 (noting that “a Sixth Amendment violation occurs when, as relevant here, the sentencing court finds facts other than a prior conviction and aggravates a defendant’s sentence based thereon,” but holding that the defendant’s aggravated community corrections sentence did not violate Blakely because the trial court based it on Blakely -exempt prior convictions); see also People v. VanMatre , 190 P.3d 770, 772, 774 (Colo. App. 2008) (same); Hopkins , 190 P.3d at 833 (explaining that in a previous appeal in the same case, a division of the court of appeals held that the

2016See Orth , 121 P.3d at 257-59 (noting that “a Sixth Amendment violation occurs when, as relevant here, the sentencing court finds facts other than a prior conviction and aggravates a defendant’s sentence based thereon,” but holding that the defendant’s aggravated community corrections sentence did not violate Blakely because the trial court based it on Blakely -exempt prior convictions); see also People v. VanMatre , 190 P.3d 770, 772, 774 (Colo. App. 2008) (same); Hopkins , 190 P.3d at 833 (explaining that in a previous appeal in the same case, a division of the court of appeals held that the

2016See Orth , 121 P.3d at 257-59 (noting that “a Sixth Amendment violation occurs when, as relevant here, the sentencing court finds facts other than a prior conviction and aggravates a defendant’s sentence based thereon,” but holding that the defendant’s aggravated community corrections sentence did not violate Blakely because the trial court based it on Blakely -exempt prior convictions); see also People v. VanMatre , 190 P.3d 770, 772, 774 (Colo. App. 2008) (same); Hopkins , 190 P.3d at 833 (explaining that in a previous appeal in the same case, a division of the court of appeals held that the

2016See Orth , 121 P.3d at 257-59 (noting that “a Sixth Amendment violation occurs when, as relevant here, the sentencing court finds facts other than a prior conviction and aggravates a defendant’s sentence based thereon,” but holding that the defendant’s aggravated community corrections sentence did not violate Blakely because the trial court based it on Blakely -exempt prior convictions); see also People v. VanMatre , 190 P.3d 770, 772, 774 (Colo. App. 2008) (same); Hopkins , 190 P.3d at 833 (explaining that in a previous appeal in the same case, a division of the court of appeals held that the

2022See People v. Glover, 2015 20 COA 16 , ¶ 48 (An error is substantial if it is “seriously prejudicial.” (quoting People v. Ujaama, 2012 COA 36, ¶ 43 )). ¶ 47 An error is substantial and requires reversal “only if [it] ‘so undermined the fundamental fairness of the trial itself so as to cast serious doubt on the reliability of the judgment of conviction.’” Hagos, ¶ 14 (quoting People v. Miller, 113 P.3d 743, 750 (Colo. 2005)); see also People v. Maloy, 2020 COA 71, ¶ 11 ; Glover, ¶ 48; Ujaama, ¶ 43. ¶ 48 At the HDVO trial, the prosecution presented only the certified documents from Ryan’s four p

2022See People v. Glover, 2015 20 COA 16 , ¶ 48 (An error is substantial if it is “seriously prejudicial.” (quoting People v. Ujaama, 2012 COA 36, ¶ 43 )). ¶ 47 An error is substantial and requires reversal “only if [it] ‘so undermined the fundamental fairness of the trial itself so as to cast serious doubt on the reliability of the judgment of conviction.’” Hagos, ¶ 14 (quoting People v. Miller, 113 P.3d 743, 750 (Colo. 2005)); see also People v. Maloy, 2020 COA 71, ¶ 11 ; Glover, ¶ 48; Ujaama, ¶ 43. ¶ 48 At the HDVO trial, the prosecution presented only the certified documents from Ryan’s four p

2022See People v. Glover, 2015 20 COA 16 , ¶ 48 (An error is substantial if it is “seriously prejudicial.” (quoting People v. Ujaama, 2012 COA 36, ¶ 43 )). ¶ 47 An error is substantial and requires reversal “only if [it] ‘so undermined the fundamental fairness of the trial itself so as to cast serious doubt on the reliability of the judgment of conviction.’” Hagos, ¶ 14 (quoting People v. Miller, 113 P.3d 743, 750 (Colo. 2005)); see also People v. Maloy, 2020 COA 71, ¶ 11 ; Glover, ¶ 48; Ujaama, ¶ 43. ¶ 48 At the HDVO trial, the prosecution presented only the certified documents from Ryan’s four p

2017See Monge v. California, 524 U.S. 721, 734 (1998) (double jeopardy doesn’t preclude retrial on a prior conviction allegation in noncapital sentencing cases); People v. Porter, 2015 CO 34, ¶ 29 (same). 52

2017See Monge v. California, 524 U.S. 721, 734 (1998) (double jeopardy doesn’t preclude retrial on a prior conviction allegation in noncapital sentencing cases); People v. Porter, 2015 CO 34, ¶ 29 (same). 52