Peo v. Marlow ( 2024 )

<div><div><div><div id="pdf-container" style="width: 782px">
<div id="pf1" data-page-no="1">
<div><div>
<div>22CA2025 Peo v Marlow 10-03-2024 </div>
<div> </div>
<div>COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Court of Appeals No. 22CA2025 </div>
<div>Pitkin County District Court No. 21CR47 </div>
<div>Honorable Christopher G. Seldin, Judge </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>The People of the State of Colorado, </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Plaintiff-Appellee, </div>
<div> </div>
<div>v. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Robert Lee Marlow<span>, </span>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Defendant-Appellant. </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>JUDGMENT AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, <span> </span>
</div>
<div>AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Division III </div>
<div>Opinion by JUDGE DUNN </div>
<div>Navarro and Gomez, JJ., concur </div>
<div> </div>
<div>NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) </div>
<div>Announced October 3, 2024 </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, Abigail M. Armstrong, Assistant Attorney </div>
<div>General <span>Fellow, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff</span>-Appellee </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Megan A. Ring, Colorado State Public Defender, <span>Katherine Brien</span>, Deputy State </div>
<div>Public Defender, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf2" data-page-no="2">
<div><div>
<div> </div>
<div>1 </div>
<div>¶ 1<span> </span><span>A jury convicted defendant, Robert Lee Marlow, of attempte<span></span>d </span>
</div>
<div>sexual assault with a use of force enhancer, indecent exposure, and </div>
<div>false imprisonment. Marlow appeals only his attempted sexual </div>
<div>assault conviction and sentence. We affirm the conviction for </div>
<div>attempted sexual assault, reverse the sentence, and remand for </div>
<div>resentencing. </div>
<div>I.<span> <span>Background </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 2<span> </span><span>Just after midnight one summer evening, an exceptionally </span>
</div>
<div>intoxicated Marlow entered an Aspen bar. Not long aft<span></span>er, Marlow </div>
<div>walked downstairs toward the bathrooms. Around the same time,<span></span> </div>
<div>the victim and a friend also entered the bar. Once there, the <span></span>victim </div>
<div>went downstairs to use the bathroom. </div>
<div>¶ 3<span> <span>As the victim entered the women’s bathroom, she saw a man </span></span>
</div>
<div>inside <span>—</span> later identified as Marlow <span>—</span> with his pants unbuttoned. <span></span> </div>
<div>She quickly left the women’s bathroom and went into the men’s </div>
<div>bathroom. But after realizing that <span>the bathroom didn’t <span></span>lock<span>, the </span></span>
</div>
<div>victim turned to leave. At this point, Marlow followed he<span></span>r in, </div>
<div>blocked the exit, pulled down his pants and underw<span></span>ear, and </div>
<div>exposed his penis. The victim screamed and begged <span></span>Marlow to </div>
<div>“please don’t do this to me” and to let her out. Marlow re<span></span>sponded, </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf3" data-page-no="3">
<div><div>
<div> </div>
<div>2 </div>
<div>“[Y]ou’re not going anywhere.” The victim, however, ducked <span></span>under </div>
<div>Marlow’s arm and escaped up the stairs. Hearing screams, </div>
<div>employees assisted the victim and ultimately removed Marlow f<span></span>rom </div>
<div>the bar<span>. </span> </div>
<div>¶ 4<span> </span><span>The prosecution charged Marlow with attempted sexual </span>
</div>
<div>assault with a use of force sentence enhancer (which elevated t<span></span>he </div>
<div>attempted sexual assault from a class 5 felony to a class 4 fel<span></span>ony), </div>
<div>indecent exposure, and false imprisonment. </div>
<div>¶ 5<span> <span>At trial, Marlow defended on the theory that he was “blacked<span>-</span></span></span>
</div>
<div>out intoxicated” and “likely committed a crime,” but “that crime </div>
<div>[wasn’t] attempted sexual assault with force.” <span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 6<span> </span><span>The jury convicted Marlow as charged. The trial court </span>
</div>
<div>sentenced Marlow to a controlling indeterminate prison senten<span></span>ce of </div>
<div>four years to life for attempted sexual assault. </div>
<div>II.<span> <span>Sufficiency of the Evidence <span>—</span> Attempted Sexual Assault </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 7<span> </span><span>Marlow challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting </span>
</div>
<div>his attempted sexual assault conviction. He argues that <span></span>the </div>
<div>evidence wasn’t sufficient to support the jury’s finding <span></span>that he took </div>
<div>a substantial step corroborative of his purpose to knowingly cause </div>
<div>sexual intrusion or penetration against the victim’s will.<span> <span> </span></span>
</div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf4" data-page-no="4">
<div><div>
<div> </div>
<div>3 </div>
<div>A.<span> <span>Standard of Review </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 8<span> </span><span>We review sufficiency of the evidence claims de novo. <span>People v. </span></span>
</div>
<div>Donald<span>, 2020 CO 24, ¶ 18. To determine whether the pros<span></span>ecution </span>
</div>
<div>presented sufficient evidence to support a conviction, <span></span>we analyze </div>
<div>“whether the relevant evidence, both direct and circumstantial, </div>
<div>when viewed as a whole and in the light most favorable to t<span></span>he </div>
<div>prosecution, is substantial and sufficient to support a concl<span></span>usion </div>
<div>by a reasonable mind that the defendant is guilty of the charge </div>
<div>beyond a reasonable doubt.” <span>Id<span>.</span></span><span> (quoting <span>Clark v. People</span><span>, 2</span>32 P.3d </span>
</div>
<div>1287, 1291 (Colo. 2010)).<span> </span> </div>
<div>¶ 9<span> </span><span>Our inquiry is guided by five well-established principles: (1) we </span>
</div>
<div>give the prosecution the benefit of every reasonable inference t<span></span>hat </div>
<div>might fairly be drawn from the evidence; (2) the determination <span></span>of </div>
<div>witness credibility is solely within the province of the jury; (3) we </div>
<div>may not serve as a thirteenth juror by weighing the evidence or </div>
<div>resolving evidentiary conflicts; (4) a modicum of relevant eviden<span></span>ce </div>
<div>will not rationally support a conviction beyond a reasonable <span></span>doubt; </div>
<div>and (5) verdicts in criminal cases may not be based on guessing, </div>
<div>speculation, or conjecture. <span>People v. Procasky</span>, 2019 COA 181, </div>
<div>¶ 18; <span>see also People v. Perez</span>, 2016 CO 12, ¶ 31 (<span>“</span>The question is </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf5" data-page-no="5">
<div>
<img alt="" src="https://icbg.s3.amazonaws.com/media/MM9/Zgu/MM9ZguMTW/pwsU7Hj38Z0aT83wGmUtrM/47S7PRRijEBs%3D?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIA5PHC3MTPZK6YY7H5&amp;Expires=1728569004&amp;Signature=DcD%2FPallkmZsI9NjINj%2FowLkDGU%3D&amp;x-amz-security-token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEB0aCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJHMEUCIC%2B1za39%2BxRdyzSqCEVlJvx%2B3kVZPGx2DMDG8M0eXqaRAiEArQcqd2UgigxHV2id41xUp7mhScgkqkM9D1wxEXgr0mEqsgUIdhAAGgw5MjYwNDEyMDM5MzUiDCHPc%2BvEpDZ0ssf3JiqPBXZwSxD9z0OzJ9agPxm14lA7mnxpEyekQTdhShHCu39tX7d0yuqdIDIWFEPAzuMACjh4LTRK%2FjCuh5jKJclM4s3IYtEaKdG1ClCm7syN1HcUDcfpwPMFSOwD%2FIbKSLAuSegWRRbgLvvPLIO5mYNDa0eB3jDDTTf5bENhJTDE6w9jYLKcw%2FtnSmzxrKU0HGJVZnjRrc8GeDtz%2Fq8h%2FPwHceUR06f37rBsBnU1CH9kNDH3ADS1TUNl05sGtHq%2BJmBWky8mMec5H2%2B0gGKkyVftmKK6wpEv7IxpBQwtOZigmY8mY7cnl4EMTOPug9v%2FiH3L7Cbh53PcEcZu8eXt7RE3Fs6q92Ui2YoWbJ2WymgQPMa%2F6DC8nzzshOARTS9C1Eyx2UjGk9dnv0tutCTlNZOv5xBtp%2BeG97QRRFQPAY8uGrW1Bv6ufYrxJ%2BRfmJjriyzdXCBTlqov1PkfQBxILZ1fzba%2BgUGzvuYMGlM1aMOuK1C1opj0rA%2FJRSdNw2nOE5CBeSAdc2tDUKWSMBeucOP9rKQbLdKvM30DvjRO4gSVjTx%2FfoIkUO4UzIphx7w85jEzsw0eJp%2Fc6v4R6Vby7icUTNaDzvV3VUsStymZUY7xCWspNEyKnPpaRHwxNowQZkziZGzZtBn%2FnmxmunIg98Y%2BGXw5Y%2BxYuo38UKPgNxmJy70QDqkDqfp390TuBe%2FIptnkdIqW18CX0INhdAmrf5UFh2KalpF1KeFIYRnrqyeJxjcvzPYzsFCf8UD0%2BDKlzFEsX3yCEvu3E7qJY1beyd1MZOBQiz4UVN4PmDkp9998NTzZOaDWplYv9mbb%2Bh%2BWSgNJfSnou1cVJ%2B8tGZk1BGzNtFnhEBJwaqaor%2Fz6%2F9qkRfww8JWfuAY6sQGj72RFk5ZxWAwm3ypOjJtOV3wlLOdgZkmHi5cIAZH7Lmnq7Ju45k3yuu6p1sCiHg9UPhkuso1zpCHG8l8YJdiMFscrxgekADbhOYjVnmeo%2FIdEBAGfPV%2FFP0Q8Z9aFd4plQFxGNH0VNjKYP%2B53%2FNnZm%2FVeHCYz3ginef%2B%2Fhjx1x7N1W8NGnzng4HyImJXCC5qfji3giyzOeDTYPTQ%2F%2BJO5vEONsnS3wI9ZjUfkgUal8Nk%3D"><div>
<div> </div>
<div>4 </div>
<div>not whether it is possible to disagree with the inferences, but </div>
<div>rather, whether the inferences are reasonable when the evidence is </div>
<div>viewed as a whole in the light most favorable to the prosecution<span>.”)<span>.</span></span><span> </span> </div>
<div>B.<span> <span>Sufficient Evidence Supports the Jury’s Finding that </span></span>
</div>
<div>Marlow Attempted to Sexually Assault the Victim </div>
<div>¶ 10<span> <span>A person commits sexual assault if he “knowingly inflicts </span></span>
</div>
<div>sexual intrusion or sexual penetration” on a victim and “c<span></span>auses </div>
<div>submission of the victim by means of sufficient consequence </div>
<div>reasonably calculated to cause submission against the victim’s </div>
<div>will.” § 1<span>8-3-402(1)(a), C.R.S<span>. </span><span>2021;</span></span>
</div>
</div>
<div><div>1</div></div>
<div>
<div> <span>s<span>ee</span></span> <span>People v. Martinez</span>, 36 P.3d </div>
<div>154, 163 (Colo. App. 2001) (“<span>The conduct prohibited by the second </span>
</div>
<div>degree sexual assault statute is knowing sexual penetration of <span>or </span>
</div>
<div>intrusion upon a nonconsenting victim<span>.”</span><span>).</span><span> </span> </div>
<div>¶ 11<span> </span><span>Sexual intrusion includes, as relevant here<span>, “</span>any intrusion, </span>
</div>
<div>however slight, by any object or any part of a person<span>’</span>s body, except </div>
<div>the mouth, tongue, or penis, into the genital or anal opening <span></span>of </div>
<div>another person<span>’</span>s body<span>.” § 18</span>-3-401(5), C.R.S. 2024. And sexual </div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div><div>1</div></div>
<div>
<div> We cite the sexual assault statute in effect at the time of the </div>
<div>charged events. Section 18-3-<span>40</span>2(1)(a), C.R.S. 2021, has since </div>
<div>been amended. Ch. 41, sec. 1, § 18-3-402(1)(a), 2022 Colo.<span></span> Sess. </div>
<div>Laws 214; <span>see also</span> § 18-3-402(1)(a), C.R.S. 2024.<span> </span> </div>
</div>
<a href="#pf5" data-dest-detail='[5,"XYZ",69,137,null]'><div style="border-style:none;position:absolute;left:404.646667px;bottom:524.118889px;width:10.080000px;height:32.880000px;background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0.000001);"></div></a>
</div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf6" data-page-no="6">
<div><div>
<div> </div>
<div>5 </div>
<div>penetration means, in relevant part, “<span>sexual intercourse, </span>
</div>
<div>cunnilingus, fellatio, anilingus, or anal intercourse<span>.” § </span><span>18</span><span>-3-40<span></span>1(6).<span> <span> </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 12<span> <span>A person commits criminal attempt “if, acting with the kind <span></span>of </span></span>
</div>
<div>culpability otherwise required for commission of an offense, <span></span>he </div>
<div>engages in conduct constituting a substantial step toward the </div>
<div>commission of the offense.” § 18<span>-2-101(1), C.R.S. 2024. A </span>
</div>
<div>“substantial step” is “any conduct, whether act, omission, o<span></span>r </div>
<div>possession, which is strongly corroborative of the firmness of t<span></span>he </div>
<div>actor’s purpose to complete the commission of the offense.” <span>I<span></span>d.<span>; <span>see </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>also People v. Lehnert<span>, 163 P.3d <span>11<span>1<span>1,</span></span></span> 1115 (Colo. 2007<span>) </span></span>
</div>
<div>(recognizing that any conduct strongly corroborative of the f<span></span>irmness </div>
<div>of the defendant’s criminal purpose “is sufficient in itself” f<span></span>or a jury </div>
<div>to reasonably find the defendant guilty of criminal attempt).<span> </span> </div>
<div>¶ 13<span> </span><span>To be sure, this case is close. But v<span>ie</span>wed in the light most </span>
</div>
<div>favorable to the prosecution, a juror could reasonably conclude </div>
<div>from the following evidence that Marlow took a subs<span></span>tantial step </div>
<div>toward sexually assaulting the victim against her will <span>—</span> either </div>
<div>through sexual penetration or sexual intrusion: </div>
<div>•<span> <span>Marlow followed the victim into the men’s bathroom.<span> <span> </span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div>•<span> <span>Marlow blocked the bathroom’s exit with his arm.<span> <span> </span></span></span></span>
</div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf7" data-page-no="7">
<div>
<img alt="" src="https://icbg.s3.amazonaws.com/media/MM9/Zgu/MM9ZguMTW/pwsU7Hj38Z0aT83wGmUtrM/47S7PRRijEBs%3D?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIA5PHC3MTPZK6YY7H5&amp;Expires=1728569004&amp;Signature=DcD%2FPallkmZsI9NjINj%2FowLkDGU%3D&amp;x-amz-security-token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEB0aCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJHMEUCIC%2B1za39%2BxRdyzSqCEVlJvx%2B3kVZPGx2DMDG8M0eXqaRAiEArQcqd2UgigxHV2id41xUp7mhScgkqkM9D1wxEXgr0mEqsgUIdhAAGgw5MjYwNDEyMDM5MzUiDCHPc%2BvEpDZ0ssf3JiqPBXZwSxD9z0OzJ9agPxm14lA7mnxpEyekQTdhShHCu39tX7d0yuqdIDIWFEPAzuMACjh4LTRK%2FjCuh5jKJclM4s3IYtEaKdG1ClCm7syN1HcUDcfpwPMFSOwD%2FIbKSLAuSegWRRbgLvvPLIO5mYNDa0eB3jDDTTf5bENhJTDE6w9jYLKcw%2FtnSmzxrKU0HGJVZnjRrc8GeDtz%2Fq8h%2FPwHceUR06f37rBsBnU1CH9kNDH3ADS1TUNl05sGtHq%2BJmBWky8mMec5H2%2B0gGKkyVftmKK6wpEv7IxpBQwtOZigmY8mY7cnl4EMTOPug9v%2FiH3L7Cbh53PcEcZu8eXt7RE3Fs6q92Ui2YoWbJ2WymgQPMa%2F6DC8nzzshOARTS9C1Eyx2UjGk9dnv0tutCTlNZOv5xBtp%2BeG97QRRFQPAY8uGrW1Bv6ufYrxJ%2BRfmJjriyzdXCBTlqov1PkfQBxILZ1fzba%2BgUGzvuYMGlM1aMOuK1C1opj0rA%2FJRSdNw2nOE5CBeSAdc2tDUKWSMBeucOP9rKQbLdKvM30DvjRO4gSVjTx%2FfoIkUO4UzIphx7w85jEzsw0eJp%2Fc6v4R6Vby7icUTNaDzvV3VUsStymZUY7xCWspNEyKnPpaRHwxNowQZkziZGzZtBn%2FnmxmunIg98Y%2BGXw5Y%2BxYuo38UKPgNxmJy70QDqkDqfp390TuBe%2FIptnkdIqW18CX0INhdAmrf5UFh2KalpF1KeFIYRnrqyeJxjcvzPYzsFCf8UD0%2BDKlzFEsX3yCEvu3E7qJY1beyd1MZOBQiz4UVN4PmDkp9998NTzZOaDWplYv9mbb%2Bh%2BWSgNJfSnou1cVJ%2B8tGZk1BGzNtFnhEBJwaqaor%2Fz6%2F9qkRfww8JWfuAY6sQGj72RFk5ZxWAwm3ypOjJtOV3wlLOdgZkmHi5cIAZH7Lmnq7Ju45k3yuu6p1sCiHg9UPhkuso1zpCHG8l8YJdiMFscrxgekADbhOYjVnmeo%2FIdEBAGfPV%2FFP0Q8Z9aFd4plQFxGNH0VNjKYP%2B53%2FNnZm%2FVeHCYz3ginef%2B%2Fhjx1x7N1W8NGnzng4HyImJXCC5qfji3giyzOeDTYPTQ%2F%2BJO5vEONsnS3wI9ZjUfkgUal8Nk%3D"><div>
<div> </div>
<div>6 </div>
<div>•<span> <span>Marlow backed the victim into the sink.<span> </span> </span></span>
</div>
<div>•<span> <span>Marlow pushed the victim back against the sink.</span></span>
</div>
</div>
<div><div>2</div></div>
<div>
<div> <span> </span>
</div>
<div>•<span> <span>Marlow pulled down his pants and underwear to his </span></span>
</div>
<div>knees, exposing his penis.<span> </span> </div>
<div>•<span> <span>The victim was “screaming at the top of [her] lungs” and </span></span>
</div>
<div>trying to kick and punch Marlow.<span> </span> </div>
<div>•<span> <span>The victim <span>“<span>begged</span><span>”</span></span> <span>Marlow, “</span><span>[P]</span><span>lease, don’t do this</span><span>,</span><span>” and </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>to “let her leave.”<span> <span> </span></span>
</div>
<div>•<span> <span>Marlow responded that she wasn’t “going anywhere.”<span> <span> </span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div>•<span> <span>As Marlow <span>“finished getting undressed,” he started to </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>“come towards” the victim.<span> <span> </span></span>
</div>
<div>•<span> <span>The victim testified that Marlow looked “determined” and </span></span>
</div>
<div>had no regard for her fear.<span> </span> </div>
<div>•<span> <span>As he “approach[ed]” her, the victim managed to duck </span></span>
</div>
<div>under his arm and escape.<span> </span> </div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div><div>2</div></div>
<div>
<div> We recognize that the victim made some inconsistent<span></span> statements </div>
<div>about whether Marlow pushed her. But in a sufficiency challeng<span></span>e, </div>
<div>we must construe the evidence in the light most favorable to t<span></span>he </div>
<div>prosecution. <span>People v. Donald</span>, 2020 CO 24, ¶ 18. </div>
</div>
<a href="#pf7" data-dest-detail='[7,"XYZ",69,137,null]'><div style="border-style:none;position:absolute;left:607.570556px;bottom:833.775556px;width:10.090000px;height:33.740000px;background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0.000001);"></div></a>
</div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf8" data-page-no="8">
<div><div>
<div> </div>
<div>7 </div>
<div>•<span> <span>When reporting the encounter to police the day after, t<span></span>he </span></span>
</div>
<div>victim said that Marlow’s penis <span>was </span>“between hard and </div>
<div>soft.” <span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 14<span> <span>We are not persuaded otherwise by Marlow’s focus on <span></span>acts </span></span>
</div>
<div>that Marlow didn’t take. That Marlow could have taken othe<span></span>r acts </div>
<div>corroborative of his purpose to sexually assault the victim <span>doesn’t </span>
</div>
<div>diminish the quantity or quality of the evidence presented. And </div>
<div>“the question is not whether it is possible to disagree wit<span></span>h the </div>
<div>inferences” that could be drawn <span>from the evidence<span>. </span><span>Perez</span><span>, ¶</span> <span>31<span>. </span><span>To</span></span> </span>
</div>
<div>the extent different inferences could be drawn, <span>it’s</span> for the jury to </div>
<div>perform that function, not this court<span>. </span><span>See id.</span> F<span>rom</span> the evidence </div>
<div>presented, we conclude that a jury could fairly and reasonably infer </div>
<div>that Marlow took a substantial step corroborative of his purpose t<span></span>o </div>
<div>knowingly cause sexual intrusion or penetration against<span></span> the </div>
<div>victim’s will. <span>See id.<span> </span></span><span>(“</span><span>A court must not invade the province of the </span>
</div>
<div>jury by second-guessing its conclusion when the record sup<span></span>ports </div>
<div>the jury<span>’</span>s findings.<span>”).</span><span> </span> </div>
<div>¶ 15<span> </span><span>Nor does <span>People v. Derrera</span>, 667 P.2d 1363, 1371 (Colo. </span>
</div>
<div>1983) <span>—</span> where the supreme court concluded insufficient <span></span>evidence </div>
<div>supported the attempted sexual assault conviction <span>—</span> change our </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf9" data-page-no="9">
<div>
<img alt="" src="https://icbg.s3.amazonaws.com/media/MMf/YHF/MMfYHFzLkqpAYRe6fmNmeT3KQG0Xz614lzSBuxPSqOv/w%3D?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIA5PHC3MTPZK6YY7H5&amp;Expires=1728569004&amp;Signature=rGplpBBzDkmhyNaeJXZvnIEityU%3D&amp;x-amz-security-token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEB0aCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJHMEUCIC%2B1za39%2BxRdyzSqCEVlJvx%2B3kVZPGx2DMDG8M0eXqaRAiEArQcqd2UgigxHV2id41xUp7mhScgkqkM9D1wxEXgr0mEqsgUIdhAAGgw5MjYwNDEyMDM5MzUiDCHPc%2BvEpDZ0ssf3JiqPBXZwSxD9z0OzJ9agPxm14lA7mnxpEyekQTdhShHCu39tX7d0yuqdIDIWFEPAzuMACjh4LTRK%2FjCuh5jKJclM4s3IYtEaKdG1ClCm7syN1HcUDcfpwPMFSOwD%2FIbKSLAuSegWRRbgLvvPLIO5mYNDa0eB3jDDTTf5bENhJTDE6w9jYLKcw%2FtnSmzxrKU0HGJVZnjRrc8GeDtz%2Fq8h%2FPwHceUR06f37rBsBnU1CH9kNDH3ADS1TUNl05sGtHq%2BJmBWky8mMec5H2%2B0gGKkyVftmKK6wpEv7IxpBQwtOZigmY8mY7cnl4EMTOPug9v%2FiH3L7Cbh53PcEcZu8eXt7RE3Fs6q92Ui2YoWbJ2WymgQPMa%2F6DC8nzzshOARTS9C1Eyx2UjGk9dnv0tutCTlNZOv5xBtp%2BeG97QRRFQPAY8uGrW1Bv6ufYrxJ%2BRfmJjriyzdXCBTlqov1PkfQBxILZ1fzba%2BgUGzvuYMGlM1aMOuK1C1opj0rA%2FJRSdNw2nOE5CBeSAdc2tDUKWSMBeucOP9rKQbLdKvM30DvjRO4gSVjTx%2FfoIkUO4UzIphx7w85jEzsw0eJp%2Fc6v4R6Vby7icUTNaDzvV3VUsStymZUY7xCWspNEyKnPpaRHwxNowQZkziZGzZtBn%2FnmxmunIg98Y%2BGXw5Y%2BxYuo38UKPgNxmJy70QDqkDqfp390TuBe%2FIptnkdIqW18CX0INhdAmrf5UFh2KalpF1KeFIYRnrqyeJxjcvzPYzsFCf8UD0%2BDKlzFEsX3yCEvu3E7qJY1beyd1MZOBQiz4UVN4PmDkp9998NTzZOaDWplYv9mbb%2Bh%2BWSgNJfSnou1cVJ%2B8tGZk1BGzNtFnhEBJwaqaor%2Fz6%2F9qkRfww8JWfuAY6sQGj72RFk5ZxWAwm3ypOjJtOV3wlLOdgZkmHi5cIAZH7Lmnq7Ju45k3yuu6p1sCiHg9UPhkuso1zpCHG8l8YJdiMFscrxgekADbhOYjVnmeo%2FIdEBAGfPV%2FFP0Q8Z9aFd4plQFxGNH0VNjKYP%2B53%2FNnZm%2FVeHCYz3ginef%2B%2Fhjx1x7N1W8NGnzng4HyImJXCC5qfji3giyzOeDTYPTQ%2F%2BJO5vEONsnS3wI9ZjUfkgUal8Nk%3D"><div>
<div> </div>
<div>8 </div>
<div>mind<span>. <span> In <span>Derrera</span>, the defendant offered the victim a ride home. <span></span> <span>Id.</span> </span></span>
</div>
<div>at 1365.<span> </span><span>Inside the car, the defendant reached under the victim’s </span>
</div>
<div>dress, touched the inside of her mid-thigh, and invited her to his </div>
<div>apartment.<span> </span><span>Id.</span><span> <span>After the victim said, “Please don’t do t<span></span>his to me,” </span></span>
</div>
<div>the defendant removed his hand.<span> </span><span>Id.</span> But the unrequited sexual </div>
<div>advance in <span>Derrera </span>is very different from the facts here whe<span></span>re </div>
<div>Marlow had partially undressed, exposed his penis, <span></span>blocked the </div>
<div>victim’s <span>escape, showed some signs of arousal, refused </span>the victim’s </div>
<div>plea “not to do this,” and <span>advanced on the trapped and screaming </span>
</div>
<div>victim when she escaped.<span> </span> </div>
<div>¶ 16<span> </span><span>Given all this, we conclude that the prosecution presented </span>
</div>
<div>sufficient evidence to sustain the attempted sexual assault </div>
<div>conviction. Having so concluded, we needn’t consider Marlow’<span></span>s </div>
<div>anticipatory argument that insufficient evidence supported the </div>
<div>lesser included offense of attempted unlawful sexual contact. <span>See </span>
</div>
<div>Halaseh v. People<span>, 2020 CO 35M, ¶ 8 (noting <span>a lesser included </span></span>
</div>
<div>offense <span>“is always implied in the conviction of its greater offens<span></span>e”).<span> <span> </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>III.<span> <span>The Sentence Enhancer </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 17<span> </span><span>Marlow raises several challenges to the use of force sentence </span>
</div>
<div>enhancer (sentence enhancer)<span>. But we don’t address them all </span>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pfa" data-page-no="a">
<div>
<img alt="" src="https://icbg.s3.amazonaws.com/media/MMk/hXg/MMkhXg3gcEAaRuBRMiM6gwcQNlIptjsVRb7lryS41Tb4Y%3D?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIA5PHC3MTPZK6YY7H5&amp;Expires=1728569004&amp;Signature=K0h%2FVnAg8Ab0%2BODoy9aZZ6YVB2Q%3D&amp;x-amz-security-token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEB0aCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJHMEUCIC%2B1za39%2BxRdyzSqCEVlJvx%2B3kVZPGx2DMDG8M0eXqaRAiEArQcqd2UgigxHV2id41xUp7mhScgkqkM9D1wxEXgr0mEqsgUIdhAAGgw5MjYwNDEyMDM5MzUiDCHPc%2BvEpDZ0ssf3JiqPBXZwSxD9z0OzJ9agPxm14lA7mnxpEyekQTdhShHCu39tX7d0yuqdIDIWFEPAzuMACjh4LTRK%2FjCuh5jKJclM4s3IYtEaKdG1ClCm7syN1HcUDcfpwPMFSOwD%2FIbKSLAuSegWRRbgLvvPLIO5mYNDa0eB3jDDTTf5bENhJTDE6w9jYLKcw%2FtnSmzxrKU0HGJVZnjRrc8GeDtz%2Fq8h%2FPwHceUR06f37rBsBnU1CH9kNDH3ADS1TUNl05sGtHq%2BJmBWky8mMec5H2%2B0gGKkyVftmKK6wpEv7IxpBQwtOZigmY8mY7cnl4EMTOPug9v%2FiH3L7Cbh53PcEcZu8eXt7RE3Fs6q92Ui2YoWbJ2WymgQPMa%2F6DC8nzzshOARTS9C1Eyx2UjGk9dnv0tutCTlNZOv5xBtp%2BeG97QRRFQPAY8uGrW1Bv6ufYrxJ%2BRfmJjriyzdXCBTlqov1PkfQBxILZ1fzba%2BgUGzvuYMGlM1aMOuK1C1opj0rA%2FJRSdNw2nOE5CBeSAdc2tDUKWSMBeucOP9rKQbLdKvM30DvjRO4gSVjTx%2FfoIkUO4UzIphx7w85jEzsw0eJp%2Fc6v4R6Vby7icUTNaDzvV3VUsStymZUY7xCWspNEyKnPpaRHwxNowQZkziZGzZtBn%2FnmxmunIg98Y%2BGXw5Y%2BxYuo38UKPgNxmJy70QDqkDqfp390TuBe%2FIptnkdIqW18CX0INhdAmrf5UFh2KalpF1KeFIYRnrqyeJxjcvzPYzsFCf8UD0%2BDKlzFEsX3yCEvu3E7qJY1beyd1MZOBQiz4UVN4PmDkp9998NTzZOaDWplYv9mbb%2Bh%2BWSgNJfSnou1cVJ%2B8tGZk1BGzNtFnhEBJwaqaor%2Fz6%2F9qkRfww8JWfuAY6sQGj72RFk5ZxWAwm3ypOjJtOV3wlLOdgZkmHi5cIAZH7Lmnq7Ju45k3yuu6p1sCiHg9UPhkuso1zpCHG8l8YJdiMFscrxgekADbhOYjVnmeo%2FIdEBAGfPV%2FFP0Q8Z9aFd4plQFxGNH0VNjKYP%2B53%2FNnZm%2FVeHCYz3ginef%2B%2Fhjx1x7N1W8NGnzng4HyImJXCC5qfji3giyzOeDTYPTQ%2F%2BJO5vEONsnS3wI9ZjUfkgUal8Nk%3D"><div>
<div> </div>
<div>9 </div>
<div>because we agree that the court committed instructional erro<span></span>r by </div>
<div>directing the jury to determine whether Marlow attempted t<span></span>o cause </div>
<div>the victim’s submission through the application of “force <span>or</span><span> physical </span>
</div>
<div>violence” rather than “through the application of <span>physica<span></span>l<span> force or </span></span>
</div>
<div>physical violence,” as required by section 18<span>-3-402(4)(a)<span>. <span> </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>(Emphasis added.)<span> </span> </div>
<div>A.<span> <span>Additional Facts </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 18<span> </span><span>Defense counsel tendered the following proposed instruction </span>
</div>
<div>on the sentence enhancer: </div>
<div> </div>
<div>The defense-proposed instruction tracked both the use of force </div>
<div>statute and the pattern instruction. <span>See</span> § 18-3-402(4)(a); COLJI-</div>
<div>Crim. 3-4:10.INT (2023)<span>. </span> But the court rejected <span>it</span><span>. </span> Instead, over </div>
<div>defense counsel’s objection, t<span>he court instructed the jury, in </span>
</div>
<div>relevant part, as follows: </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
</div>
</div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pfb" data-page-no="b">
<div>
<img alt="" src="https://icbg.s3.amazonaws.com/media/MMh/QjI/MMhQjITTSljOv2yjqoCo4NDX1XIn/4to/nbSEg0pg1Fzc%3D?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIA5PHC3MTPZK6YY7H5&amp;Expires=1728569004&amp;Signature=bfi9V8Iuvs4iOKC%2BhrqD4eMyGpo%3D&amp;x-amz-security-token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEB0aCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJHMEUCIC%2B1za39%2BxRdyzSqCEVlJvx%2B3kVZPGx2DMDG8M0eXqaRAiEArQcqd2UgigxHV2id41xUp7mhScgkqkM9D1wxEXgr0mEqsgUIdhAAGgw5MjYwNDEyMDM5MzUiDCHPc%2BvEpDZ0ssf3JiqPBXZwSxD9z0OzJ9agPxm14lA7mnxpEyekQTdhShHCu39tX7d0yuqdIDIWFEPAzuMACjh4LTRK%2FjCuh5jKJclM4s3IYtEaKdG1ClCm7syN1HcUDcfpwPMFSOwD%2FIbKSLAuSegWRRbgLvvPLIO5mYNDa0eB3jDDTTf5bENhJTDE6w9jYLKcw%2FtnSmzxrKU0HGJVZnjRrc8GeDtz%2Fq8h%2FPwHceUR06f37rBsBnU1CH9kNDH3ADS1TUNl05sGtHq%2BJmBWky8mMec5H2%2B0gGKkyVftmKK6wpEv7IxpBQwtOZigmY8mY7cnl4EMTOPug9v%2FiH3L7Cbh53PcEcZu8eXt7RE3Fs6q92Ui2YoWbJ2WymgQPMa%2F6DC8nzzshOARTS9C1Eyx2UjGk9dnv0tutCTlNZOv5xBtp%2BeG97QRRFQPAY8uGrW1Bv6ufYrxJ%2BRfmJjriyzdXCBTlqov1PkfQBxILZ1fzba%2BgUGzvuYMGlM1aMOuK1C1opj0rA%2FJRSdNw2nOE5CBeSAdc2tDUKWSMBeucOP9rKQbLdKvM30DvjRO4gSVjTx%2FfoIkUO4UzIphx7w85jEzsw0eJp%2Fc6v4R6Vby7icUTNaDzvV3VUsStymZUY7xCWspNEyKnPpaRHwxNowQZkziZGzZtBn%2FnmxmunIg98Y%2BGXw5Y%2BxYuo38UKPgNxmJy70QDqkDqfp390TuBe%2FIptnkdIqW18CX0INhdAmrf5UFh2KalpF1KeFIYRnrqyeJxjcvzPYzsFCf8UD0%2BDKlzFEsX3yCEvu3E7qJY1beyd1MZOBQiz4UVN4PmDkp9998NTzZOaDWplYv9mbb%2Bh%2BWSgNJfSnou1cVJ%2B8tGZk1BGzNtFnhEBJwaqaor%2Fz6%2F9qkRfww8JWfuAY6sQGj72RFk5ZxWAwm3ypOjJtOV3wlLOdgZkmHi5cIAZH7Lmnq7Ju45k3yuu6p1sCiHg9UPhkuso1zpCHG8l8YJdiMFscrxgekADbhOYjVnmeo%2FIdEBAGfPV%2FFP0Q8Z9aFd4plQFxGNH0VNjKYP%2B53%2FNnZm%2FVeHCYz3ginef%2B%2Fhjx1x7N1W8NGnzng4HyImJXCC5qfji3giyzOeDTYPTQ%2F%2BJO5vEONsnS3wI9ZjUfkgUal8Nk%3D"><div>
<div> </div>
<div>10 </div>
<div>Instruction 12 </div>
<div> </div>
<div>¶ 19<span> </span><span>Additionally, the corresponding verdict form asked the jury to </span>
</div>
<div>answer <span>“yes” or “no” to </span>the question, <span>“Did the defendant </span>attempt to </div>
<div>cause submission through force or violence?<span>”</span>
</div>
</div>
<div><div>3</div></div>
<div>
<div> <span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 20<span> </span><span>During deliberations, the jury sought clarification on the </span>
</div>
<div>language pertaining to the sentence enhancer, asking the court <span></span>to </div>
<div>“please define ‘actual application of force or physical violence?’” <span>The </span>
</div>
<div>court declined, simply <span>responding, “</span><span>N</span><span>o.”</span> </div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div><div>3</div></div>
<div>
<div> We recognize that the focus of the instruction conference relate<span></span>d </div>
<div>to the attempt charge and whether the instruction and verdict <span></span>form </div>
<div>should be modified to address the attempt charge. Defens<span></span>e counsel </div>
<div>objected to the inclusion of the word “attempt” in the s<span>entence </span>
</div>
<div>enhancer instruction as well <span>as </span>in the verdict form. And Marlow </div>
<div>persists in this objection on appeal. However, given our resolution,<span></span> </div>
<div>we don’t reach Marlow’s additional challenges to the sentence </div>
<div>enhancer instruction or verdict form<span>. </span> </div>
</div>
<a href="#pfb" data-dest-detail='[11,"XYZ",69,203,null]'><div style="border-style:none;position:absolute;left:485.542778px;bottom:479.933333px;width:10.080000px;height:32.860000px;background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0.000001);"></div></a>
</div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pfc" data-page-no="c">
<div><div>
<div> </div>
<div>11 </div>
<div>B.<span> <span>Preservation and Standard of Review </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 21<span> </span><span>The parties agree that Marlow preserved his objection to the </span>
</div>
<div>sentence enhancer instruction (Instruction 12) but dispute whether </div>
<div>we should review any error under the harmless error standard or </div>
<div>the constitutional harmless error standard<span>. </span> <span>Compare Griego v. </span>
</div>
<div>People<span>, 19 P.3d 1, 7 (Colo. 2001) (preserved allegation of </span>
</div>
<div>instructional error regarding an element of an offense is <span>an “error of </span>
</div>
<div>constitutional magnitude” and <span>is</span><span> reviewed under the constitutional </span>
</div>
<div>harmless error standard)<span>, </span><span>with People v. Garcia</span>, 28 P.3d 340, 34<span></span>4 </div>
<div>(Colo. 2001) (preserved allegations of instructional error that<span></span> are not </div>
<div>errors of “constitutional dimension” are reviewed under the </div>
<div>harmless error standard (quoting <span>Salcedo v. People</span>, 999 P.2d 8<span></span>33<span>, </span>
</div>
<div>841 (Colo. 2000)))<span>. </span> Because the result is the same under either </div>
<div>standard, we will apply t<span>he “more difficult” </span>(to obtain reversal) </div>
<div>harmless error standard. <span>Hagos <span>v. People</span></span><span>, </span>2012 CO 63, <span>¶ </span><span>12.</span><span> </span>
</div>
<div>Under <span>th<span>is</span></span> <span>standard, we must reverse if there’s a reasonable </span>
</div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pfd" data-page-no="d">
<div>
<img alt="" src="https://icbg.s3.amazonaws.com/media/MMX/n%2Be/MMXn%2BekQ817y/lXyeovZwcgeMWibwHo7dUSO3Lu0a7r74%3D?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIA5PHC3MTPZK6YY7H5&amp;Expires=1728569004&amp;Signature=%2FU9%2F8udFO5IoleKTBMLiJgQHq38%3D&amp;x-amz-security-token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEB0aCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJHMEUCIC%2B1za39%2BxRdyzSqCEVlJvx%2B3kVZPGx2DMDG8M0eXqaRAiEArQcqd2UgigxHV2id41xUp7mhScgkqkM9D1wxEXgr0mEqsgUIdhAAGgw5MjYwNDEyMDM5MzUiDCHPc%2BvEpDZ0ssf3JiqPBXZwSxD9z0OzJ9agPxm14lA7mnxpEyekQTdhShHCu39tX7d0yuqdIDIWFEPAzuMACjh4LTRK%2FjCuh5jKJclM4s3IYtEaKdG1ClCm7syN1HcUDcfpwPMFSOwD%2FIbKSLAuSegWRRbgLvvPLIO5mYNDa0eB3jDDTTf5bENhJTDE6w9jYLKcw%2FtnSmzxrKU0HGJVZnjRrc8GeDtz%2Fq8h%2FPwHceUR06f37rBsBnU1CH9kNDH3ADS1TUNl05sGtHq%2BJmBWky8mMec5H2%2B0gGKkyVftmKK6wpEv7IxpBQwtOZigmY8mY7cnl4EMTOPug9v%2FiH3L7Cbh53PcEcZu8eXt7RE3Fs6q92Ui2YoWbJ2WymgQPMa%2F6DC8nzzshOARTS9C1Eyx2UjGk9dnv0tutCTlNZOv5xBtp%2BeG97QRRFQPAY8uGrW1Bv6ufYrxJ%2BRfmJjriyzdXCBTlqov1PkfQBxILZ1fzba%2BgUGzvuYMGlM1aMOuK1C1opj0rA%2FJRSdNw2nOE5CBeSAdc2tDUKWSMBeucOP9rKQbLdKvM30DvjRO4gSVjTx%2FfoIkUO4UzIphx7w85jEzsw0eJp%2Fc6v4R6Vby7icUTNaDzvV3VUsStymZUY7xCWspNEyKnPpaRHwxNowQZkziZGzZtBn%2FnmxmunIg98Y%2BGXw5Y%2BxYuo38UKPgNxmJy70QDqkDqfp390TuBe%2FIptnkdIqW18CX0INhdAmrf5UFh2KalpF1KeFIYRnrqyeJxjcvzPYzsFCf8UD0%2BDKlzFEsX3yCEvu3E7qJY1beyd1MZOBQiz4UVN4PmDkp9998NTzZOaDWplYv9mbb%2Bh%2BWSgNJfSnou1cVJ%2B8tGZk1BGzNtFnhEBJwaqaor%2Fz6%2F9qkRfww8JWfuAY6sQGj72RFk5ZxWAwm3ypOjJtOV3wlLOdgZkmHi5cIAZH7Lmnq7Ju45k3yuu6p1sCiHg9UPhkuso1zpCHG8l8YJdiMFscrxgekADbhOYjVnmeo%2FIdEBAGfPV%2FFP0Q8Z9aFd4plQFxGNH0VNjKYP%2B53%2FNnZm%2FVeHCYz3ginef%2B%2Fhjx1x7N1W8NGnzng4HyImJXCC5qfji3giyzOeDTYPTQ%2F%2BJO5vEONsnS3wI9ZjUfkgUal8Nk%3D"><div>
<div> </div>
<div>12 </div>
<div>probability that the error contributed to the conviction. <span>Washi<span></span>ngton </span>
</div>
<div>v. People<span>, <span>2024 CO 26, ¶ 25.</span></span>
</div>
</div>
<div><div>4</div></div>
<div>
<div> </div>
<div>¶ 22<span> </span><span>A trial court must instruct the jury correctly on the law </span>
</div>
<div>applicable to the case. <span>People v. Weinreich</span>, 119 P.3d 1073, 1<span></span>076 </div>
<div>(Colo. 2005). Instructions that substantially track the statutory </div>
<div>language are generally sufficient. <span>People v. Archuleta</span>, 2017 C<span></span>OA 9, </div>
<div>¶ 52.<span> </span>We review de novo whether the jury instructions adequately </div>
<div>informed the jury of the governing law. <span>Garcia v. People</span>, 2022 CO </div>
<div>6, ¶ 16.<span> </span> </div>
<div>C.<span> <span>The Sentence Enhancer </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 23<span> </span><span>Sexual assault is generally a class 4 felony. <span>See</span> § 18-3-402(2). </span>
</div>
<div>But<span> <span>if a defendant “causes submission of the victim <span></span>through the </span></span>
</div>
<div>actual application of physical force or physical violence,” <span>then <span>it</span></span><span>’<span>s </span></span>
</div>
<div>elevated to a class 3 felony. § 18-3-402(4)(a). And <span>“</span>criminal </div>
<div>attempt to commit a class 3 felony is a class 4 felony.” <span> § <span>18</span><span>-2-</span></span>
</div>
<div>101(4). All this is to say that if the sentence enhancer applies to <span></span>an </div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div><div>4</div></div>
<div>
<div> The People dispute preservation as to the verdict form and </div>
<div>specifically to the omission of the word “physical” in t<span></span>he verdict </div>
<div>form (which omits the word “physical” before both “force” an<span></span>d </div>
<div>“violence”<span>).<span> But because we conclude the instructional error </span></span>
</div>
<div>requires reversal regardless of the verdict form<span>, we needn’t resolve </span>
</div>
<div>this dispute. </div>
</div>
<a href="#pfd" data-dest-detail='[13,"XYZ",69,170,null]'><div style="border-style:none;position:absolute;left:337.755000px;bottom:835.973333px;width:10.090000px;height:32.880000px;background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0.000001);"></div></a>
</div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pfe" data-page-no="e">
<div><div>
<div> </div>
<div>13 </div>
<div>attempted sexual assault, then a defendant commits a class 4 </div>
<div>felony. <span>See </span>§§ 18-2-101(4), 18-3-402(4)(a)<span>; <span>see</span></span><span> also People v. King</span><span>, </span>
</div>
<div>151 P.3d 594, 599 (Colo. App. 2006) (applying sentence enhancer to </div>
<div>attempted sexual assault).<span> </span>And a class 4 felony sex offense is </div>
<div>subject to indeterminate sentencing. <span>See</span> <span>King</span>, 151 P.3d <span>at</span> 599 </div>
<div>(“[A]<span> person who is charged with criminal attempt to commit <span></span>a </span>
</div>
<div>sexual assault is subject to indeterminate sentencing under [the </div>
<div>Colorado Sex Offender Lifetime Supervision Act of 1998 (the Act)] <span></span>if </div>
<div>the attempted assault constitutes a class two, three, or fo<span></span>ur </div>
<div>felony<span>.”); <span>see also <span>§ <span>18</span>-1.3-1004, C.R.S. 2024 (setting out </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>Colorado’s indeterminate sentencing scheme under the Act);<span></span> § 18<span>-</span>
</div>
<div>1.3-1003(5)(b), C.R.S. 2024 (<span>defining “</span><span>[s]</span><span>ex offense” </span>as used in the </div>
<div>Act to include criminal attempt to commit sexual assault if such </div>
<div>criminal attempt would constitute a class 2, 3, or 4 f<span></span>elony<span>).</span><span> </span> </div>
<div>¶ 24<span> </span><span>Like the elements of an offense, a sentence enhancer must be </span>
</div>
<div>proved beyond a reasonable doubt. <span>People v. Dunlap</span>, 124 P.3d 7<span></span>80, </div>
<div>793 (Colo. App. 2004); <span>see <span>also Armintrout v. People</span></span>, 864 P.2d 576, </div>
<div>580 (Colo. 1993) (“A sentence enhancer is similar to an essential </div>
<div>element of an offense in that a defendant may not be sentence<span></span>d at </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pff" data-page-no="f">
<div>
<img alt="" src="https://icbg.s3.amazonaws.com/media/MMb/Tzk/MMbTzko2xRiePWd5xIUiMRwL0AnniKYn5UsfYNCnlujQY%3D?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIA5PHC3MTPZK6YY7H5&amp;Expires=1728569004&amp;Signature=E%2Bx7hLMD95C2SWFKwkLHizoMngI%3D&amp;x-amz-security-token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEB0aCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJHMEUCIC%2B1za39%2BxRdyzSqCEVlJvx%2B3kVZPGx2DMDG8M0eXqaRAiEArQcqd2UgigxHV2id41xUp7mhScgkqkM9D1wxEXgr0mEqsgUIdhAAGgw5MjYwNDEyMDM5MzUiDCHPc%2BvEpDZ0ssf3JiqPBXZwSxD9z0OzJ9agPxm14lA7mnxpEyekQTdhShHCu39tX7d0yuqdIDIWFEPAzuMACjh4LTRK%2FjCuh5jKJclM4s3IYtEaKdG1ClCm7syN1HcUDcfpwPMFSOwD%2FIbKSLAuSegWRRbgLvvPLIO5mYNDa0eB3jDDTTf5bENhJTDE6w9jYLKcw%2FtnSmzxrKU0HGJVZnjRrc8GeDtz%2Fq8h%2FPwHceUR06f37rBsBnU1CH9kNDH3ADS1TUNl05sGtHq%2BJmBWky8mMec5H2%2B0gGKkyVftmKK6wpEv7IxpBQwtOZigmY8mY7cnl4EMTOPug9v%2FiH3L7Cbh53PcEcZu8eXt7RE3Fs6q92Ui2YoWbJ2WymgQPMa%2F6DC8nzzshOARTS9C1Eyx2UjGk9dnv0tutCTlNZOv5xBtp%2BeG97QRRFQPAY8uGrW1Bv6ufYrxJ%2BRfmJjriyzdXCBTlqov1PkfQBxILZ1fzba%2BgUGzvuYMGlM1aMOuK1C1opj0rA%2FJRSdNw2nOE5CBeSAdc2tDUKWSMBeucOP9rKQbLdKvM30DvjRO4gSVjTx%2FfoIkUO4UzIphx7w85jEzsw0eJp%2Fc6v4R6Vby7icUTNaDzvV3VUsStymZUY7xCWspNEyKnPpaRHwxNowQZkziZGzZtBn%2FnmxmunIg98Y%2BGXw5Y%2BxYuo38UKPgNxmJy70QDqkDqfp390TuBe%2FIptnkdIqW18CX0INhdAmrf5UFh2KalpF1KeFIYRnrqyeJxjcvzPYzsFCf8UD0%2BDKlzFEsX3yCEvu3E7qJY1beyd1MZOBQiz4UVN4PmDkp9998NTzZOaDWplYv9mbb%2Bh%2BWSgNJfSnou1cVJ%2B8tGZk1BGzNtFnhEBJwaqaor%2Fz6%2F9qkRfww8JWfuAY6sQGj72RFk5ZxWAwm3ypOjJtOV3wlLOdgZkmHi5cIAZH7Lmnq7Ju45k3yuu6p1sCiHg9UPhkuso1zpCHG8l8YJdiMFscrxgekADbhOYjVnmeo%2FIdEBAGfPV%2FFP0Q8Z9aFd4plQFxGNH0VNjKYP%2B53%2FNnZm%2FVeHCYz3ginef%2B%2Fhjx1x7N1W8NGnzng4HyImJXCC5qfji3giyzOeDTYPTQ%2F%2BJO5vEONsnS3wI9ZjUfkgUal8Nk%3D"><div>
<div> </div>
<div>14 </div>
<div>the higher felony level unless the factor enhancing the sentence is </div>
<div>proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”).<span> <span> </span></span>
</div>
<div>D.<span> <span>The Court Committed Instructional Error </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 25<span> </span><span>Marlow argues <span>—</span> and we agree <span>—</span> that Instruction 12 (and the </span>
</div>
<div>corresponding verdict form) failed to track the language of section </div>
<div>18<span>-3-402(4)(a) by <span>omitting the word “physical” before <span></span>the word </span></span>
</div>
<div>“force.”<span> <span> </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 26<span> </span><span>For a couple of reasons, we <span>are unpersuaded by the People<span></span>’s </span></span>
</div>
<div>response that the omission doesn’t matter and that “force” an<span></span>d </div>
<div>“physical force” mean the same thing<span> because the instruction </span>
</div>
<div>required <span>“the actual application of force</span><span>.</span><span>” </span> First, it requires us to </div>
<div>disregard the plain language of the statute. Had the <span></span>legislature </div>
<div>intended to allow for enhanced sentencing through the ap<span></span>plication </div>
<div>of “force” alone, it could have <span>said so<span>. </span> The legislature instead chose </span>
</div>
<div>to modify <span>the word “force” with the word “physical</span><span>.</span><span>” </span>And we will not </div>
<div>construe a statute in a manner that renders any words or ph<span></span>rases </div>
<div>meaningless. <span>See Pineda-Liberato v. People</span>, 2017 CO 95, ¶ 22<span>; <span>see </span></span>
</div>
<div>also Turbyne v. People<span>, 151 P.3d 563, 567-68 (Colo. 2007) </span>
</div>
<div>(explaining we will not add or subtract words from a statute).<span> </span><span> </span>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf10" data-page-no="10">
<div>
<img alt="" src="https://icbg.s3.amazonaws.com/media/MMr/QRq/MMrQRqs/OwhibD/eIz7hVTtlL6PzLD3Dq7/fVzCh1VTZU%3D?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIA5PHC3MTPZK6YY7H5&amp;Expires=1728569004&amp;Signature=OFBGirnzb%2BGy35VhyUjAEx%2BaQwo%3D&amp;x-amz-security-token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEB0aCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJHMEUCIC%2B1za39%2BxRdyzSqCEVlJvx%2B3kVZPGx2DMDG8M0eXqaRAiEArQcqd2UgigxHV2id41xUp7mhScgkqkM9D1wxEXgr0mEqsgUIdhAAGgw5MjYwNDEyMDM5MzUiDCHPc%2BvEpDZ0ssf3JiqPBXZwSxD9z0OzJ9agPxm14lA7mnxpEyekQTdhShHCu39tX7d0yuqdIDIWFEPAzuMACjh4LTRK%2FjCuh5jKJclM4s3IYtEaKdG1ClCm7syN1HcUDcfpwPMFSOwD%2FIbKSLAuSegWRRbgLvvPLIO5mYNDa0eB3jDDTTf5bENhJTDE6w9jYLKcw%2FtnSmzxrKU0HGJVZnjRrc8GeDtz%2Fq8h%2FPwHceUR06f37rBsBnU1CH9kNDH3ADS1TUNl05sGtHq%2BJmBWky8mMec5H2%2B0gGKkyVftmKK6wpEv7IxpBQwtOZigmY8mY7cnl4EMTOPug9v%2FiH3L7Cbh53PcEcZu8eXt7RE3Fs6q92Ui2YoWbJ2WymgQPMa%2F6DC8nzzshOARTS9C1Eyx2UjGk9dnv0tutCTlNZOv5xBtp%2BeG97QRRFQPAY8uGrW1Bv6ufYrxJ%2BRfmJjriyzdXCBTlqov1PkfQBxILZ1fzba%2BgUGzvuYMGlM1aMOuK1C1opj0rA%2FJRSdNw2nOE5CBeSAdc2tDUKWSMBeucOP9rKQbLdKvM30DvjRO4gSVjTx%2FfoIkUO4UzIphx7w85jEzsw0eJp%2Fc6v4R6Vby7icUTNaDzvV3VUsStymZUY7xCWspNEyKnPpaRHwxNowQZkziZGzZtBn%2FnmxmunIg98Y%2BGXw5Y%2BxYuo38UKPgNxmJy70QDqkDqfp390TuBe%2FIptnkdIqW18CX0INhdAmrf5UFh2KalpF1KeFIYRnrqyeJxjcvzPYzsFCf8UD0%2BDKlzFEsX3yCEvu3E7qJY1beyd1MZOBQiz4UVN4PmDkp9998NTzZOaDWplYv9mbb%2Bh%2BWSgNJfSnou1cVJ%2B8tGZk1BGzNtFnhEBJwaqaor%2Fz6%2F9qkRfww8JWfuAY6sQGj72RFk5ZxWAwm3ypOjJtOV3wlLOdgZkmHi5cIAZH7Lmnq7Ju45k3yuu6p1sCiHg9UPhkuso1zpCHG8l8YJdiMFscrxgekADbhOYjVnmeo%2FIdEBAGfPV%2FFP0Q8Z9aFd4plQFxGNH0VNjKYP%2B53%2FNnZm%2FVeHCYz3ginef%2B%2Fhjx1x7N1W8NGnzng4HyImJXCC5qfji3giyzOeDTYPTQ%2F%2BJO5vEONsnS3wI9ZjUfkgUal8Nk%3D"><div>
<div> </div>
<div>15 </div>
<div>¶ 27<span> </span><span>Second, while <span>“physical force” means “force applied to the </span></span>
</div>
<div>body,<span>” <span>People v. Keene<span>, 226 P.3d 1140, 1143 (Colo. <span></span>App. 2009)<span>, </span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div>“force” has a broader meaning<span> which could involve </span><span>—</span><span> </span>but doesn’t </div>
<div>require <span>—</span> physical contact. <span>See</span> Webster<span>’</span>s Third New International </div>
<div>Dictionary 887 (2002) (defining force to include, among other </div>
<div>things, <span>“power, violence, compulsion, or constraint” <span></span>or “<span>strength or </span></span>
</div>
<div>power of any degree”<span>). A person can therefore apply <span>“</span><span>force<span>”</span></span> without </span>
</div>
<div>touching another’s body<span>. For instance, purposeful and aggressive </span>
</div>
<div>movements towards someone or assertive commands directe<span></span>d at </div>
<div>someone could constitute an application of “force” without tou<span></span>ching </div>
<div>another person. And, indeed, the evidence here shows as much<span>. </span>
</div>
<div>Leaving aside the victim’s statements <span>about whether Marlow </span>
</div>
<div>pushed her, the victim testified that Marlow (who is significant<span></span>ly </div>
<div>larger than the victim) barged into a small bathroom, blocked the </div>
<div>only exit, <span>and “kind of backed [her] into the sink.” Thus, </span>even if <span></span>the </div>
<div>jury didn’t <span>believe that Marlow pushed the victim, it could still </span>
</div>
<div>conclude that Marlow’s actions forced the victim back <span>against t<span></span>he </span>
</div>
<div>sink without any physical contact. </div>
<div>¶ 28<span> </span><span>That leaves only the question of whether the error was </span>
</div>
<div>harmless. While the People argue that it was, whether and to wh<span></span>at </div>
</div>
</div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf11" data-page-no="11">
<div><div>
<div> </div>
<div>16 </div>
<div>extent Marlow used force <span>—</span> and specifically physical force against </div>
<div>the victim <span>—</span> was hotly contested at trial. The victim made </div>
<div>inconsistent statements as to whether Marlow pushed her back <span></span>or </div>
<div>simply forced her back through his actions<span>. </span>Indeed, the officer who </div>
<div>spoke with the victim the day after the assault testified it was </div>
<div>unclear whether Marlow ever touched the victim. And as alrea<span></span>dy </div>
<div>explained, the jury could’ve <span>reasonably and unanimously concluded </span>
</div>
<div>that Marlow used force <span>—</span> but not physical force <span>—</span> against the </div>
<div>victim; if so, the jury would not have found him guilty of <span></span>the </div>
<div>sentence enhancer but for the erroneous sentence enhancer </div>
<div>instruction.<span> <span>The error was therefore prejudicial.</span> <span> </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 29<span> </span><span>And even beyond that, we know the jury was confused abo<span></span>ut </span>
</div>
<div>the “actual application of force or physical violence” becau<span></span>se it </div>
<div>unsuccessfully asked the court for a definition of that phrase<span>. </span><span>See </span>
</div>
<div>Garcia v. People<span>, 2022 CO 6, ¶ 16 (<span>“</span>We review not only whether the </span>
</div>
<div>jury instructions faithfully track the law but also wh<span></span>ether the </div>
<div>instructions are confusing or may mislead the jury.<span>”)</span><span>.</span><span> </span> </div>
<div>¶ 30<span> <span>Given the evidence presented and the juror confusion,<span></span> we can’t </span></span>
</div>
<div>conclude the <span>omission of the word “physical” </span>from Instruction 12 </div>
<div>was harmless. <span>See People v. Ferguson</span>, 43 P.3d 705, 707-08 (Colo. </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf12" data-page-no="12">
<div>
<img alt="" src="https://icbg.s3.amazonaws.com/media/MM9/Zgu/MM9ZguMTW/pwsU7Hj38Z0aT83wGmUtrM/47S7PRRijEBs%3D?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIA5PHC3MTPZK6YY7H5&amp;Expires=1728569004&amp;Signature=DcD%2FPallkmZsI9NjINj%2FowLkDGU%3D&amp;x-amz-security-token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEB0aCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJHMEUCIC%2B1za39%2BxRdyzSqCEVlJvx%2B3kVZPGx2DMDG8M0eXqaRAiEArQcqd2UgigxHV2id41xUp7mhScgkqkM9D1wxEXgr0mEqsgUIdhAAGgw5MjYwNDEyMDM5MzUiDCHPc%2BvEpDZ0ssf3JiqPBXZwSxD9z0OzJ9agPxm14lA7mnxpEyekQTdhShHCu39tX7d0yuqdIDIWFEPAzuMACjh4LTRK%2FjCuh5jKJclM4s3IYtEaKdG1ClCm7syN1HcUDcfpwPMFSOwD%2FIbKSLAuSegWRRbgLvvPLIO5mYNDa0eB3jDDTTf5bENhJTDE6w9jYLKcw%2FtnSmzxrKU0HGJVZnjRrc8GeDtz%2Fq8h%2FPwHceUR06f37rBsBnU1CH9kNDH3ADS1TUNl05sGtHq%2BJmBWky8mMec5H2%2B0gGKkyVftmKK6wpEv7IxpBQwtOZigmY8mY7cnl4EMTOPug9v%2FiH3L7Cbh53PcEcZu8eXt7RE3Fs6q92Ui2YoWbJ2WymgQPMa%2F6DC8nzzshOARTS9C1Eyx2UjGk9dnv0tutCTlNZOv5xBtp%2BeG97QRRFQPAY8uGrW1Bv6ufYrxJ%2BRfmJjriyzdXCBTlqov1PkfQBxILZ1fzba%2BgUGzvuYMGlM1aMOuK1C1opj0rA%2FJRSdNw2nOE5CBeSAdc2tDUKWSMBeucOP9rKQbLdKvM30DvjRO4gSVjTx%2FfoIkUO4UzIphx7w85jEzsw0eJp%2Fc6v4R6Vby7icUTNaDzvV3VUsStymZUY7xCWspNEyKnPpaRHwxNowQZkziZGzZtBn%2FnmxmunIg98Y%2BGXw5Y%2BxYuo38UKPgNxmJy70QDqkDqfp390TuBe%2FIptnkdIqW18CX0INhdAmrf5UFh2KalpF1KeFIYRnrqyeJxjcvzPYzsFCf8UD0%2BDKlzFEsX3yCEvu3E7qJY1beyd1MZOBQiz4UVN4PmDkp9998NTzZOaDWplYv9mbb%2Bh%2BWSgNJfSnou1cVJ%2B8tGZk1BGzNtFnhEBJwaqaor%2Fz6%2F9qkRfww8JWfuAY6sQGj72RFk5ZxWAwm3ypOjJtOV3wlLOdgZkmHi5cIAZH7Lmnq7Ju45k3yuu6p1sCiHg9UPhkuso1zpCHG8l8YJdiMFscrxgekADbhOYjVnmeo%2FIdEBAGfPV%2FFP0Q8Z9aFd4plQFxGNH0VNjKYP%2B53%2FNnZm%2FVeHCYz3ginef%2B%2Fhjx1x7N1W8NGnzng4HyImJXCC5qfji3giyzOeDTYPTQ%2F%2BJO5vEONsnS3wI9ZjUfkgUal8Nk%3D"><div>
<div> </div>
<div>17 </div>
<div>App. 2001) (holding that the trial court’s instructional error w<span></span>asn’t </div>
<div>harmless)<span>; </span><span>c<span>f.</span><span> People v. Miller<span>, 113 P.3d 743, <span>750</span> (Colo. 2005) <span>(“[A]n </span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div>erroneous jury instruction does not normally constitute plain e<span></span>rror </div>
<div>where the issue is not contested at trial or where the <span></span>record </div>
<div>contains overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt.”).<span> </span>
</div>
<div>Accordingly<span>, <span>we must <span>reverse Marlow’s class 4 felony conviction. <span></span> <span> </span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 31<span> <span>As to the remedy, Marlow asks us to “remand the case for </span></span>
</div>
<div>resentencing on a class [5] <span>felony.” Having argued </span>that the court </div>
<div>didn’t err, or alternatively that the error <span>was harmless, the People </span>
</div>
<div>neither respond to the requested remedy nor propose an <span></span>alternate </div>
<div>remedy. We therefore remand the case for resentencing on the </div>
<div>attempted sexual assault conviction as a class 5 felony. </div>
<div>IV.<span> </span><span>Disposition </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 32<span> </span><span>We<span> affirm the attempted sexual assault conviction, reverse the </span></span>
</div>
<div>sentence enhancement, and remand the case to the trial cou<span></span>rt for </div>
<div>resentencing on a class 5 felony.</div>
</div>
<div><div>5</div></div>
<div>
<div> <span> </span>
</div>
<div>JUDGE NAVARRO and JUDGE GOMEZ concur. </div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div><div>5</div></div>
<div>
<div> <span>Marlow doesn’t appeal the two misdemeanor convictions, so t<span></span>hose </span>
</div>
<div>convictions remain undisturbed.<span> </span> </div>
</div>
<a href="#pf12" data-dest-detail='[18,"XYZ",69,104,null]'><div style="border-style:none;position:absolute;left:373.903333px;bottom:251.134444px;width:10.080000px;height:32.870000px;background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0.000001);"></div></a>
</div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
</div></div></div></div>