County District Court No. 14CR1195 Honorable John E.
Cynthia H. Coffman, Attorney General, Molly E. McNab,
Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for
Douglas K. Wilson, Colorado State Public Defender, Sarah
Quinn, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, Colorado, for
1 Defendant, Demetre Cardell Boulden, appeals the trial
court's entry of judgment of conviction upon a jury
verdict finding him guilty of driving under restraint. We
conclude that under People v. Ellison, 14
P.3d 1034 (Colo. 2000), the mere mailing of the notice of
revocation is not sufficient to establish the knowledge
element of the offense of driving under restraint. We
therefore vacate the judgment and sentence and remand with
2 A police officer pulled defendant over for driving a car
with a broken headlight. When the officer checked with
dispatch on the license plate number of the car, he learned
that the car had been reported as stolen. Defendant's
driving record indicated that his driver's license had
been suspended seven months before he was pulled over.
3 Defendant was charged with second degree aggravated motor
vehicle theft and driving under restraint. Following a jury
trial, he was convicted of driving under restraint and
acquitted of motor vehicle theft.
Sufficiency of the Evidence
4 Defendant contends that there was insufficient evidence to
find defendant guilty of driving under restraint. We agree.
Standard of Review
5 The People contend that defendant did not preserve this
argument and that we should accordingly apply plain error
review. In People v. McCoy, 2015 COA 76M, ¶ 6,
a division of this court concluded that sufficiency of the
evidence claims are not subject to plain error review. We
agree. In any event, defendant moved for judgment of
acquittal at the close of the prosecution's case-in-chief
based on insufficiency of the evidence of defendant's
mental state. The trial court denied the motion, expressly
finding that there was sufficient evidence of defendant's
knowledge for purposes of the driving under restraint charge.
Where a defendant raises an issue sufficiently to give the
trial court an opportunity to rule on the claim raised on
appeal, we conclude the claim is sufficiently preserved.
See People v. Rhea, 2014 COA 60, ¶ 55.
Accordingly, plain error review does not apply.
6 The evidence is sufficient if, after viewing the evidence
in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational
jury could have found the essential elements of the crime
beyond a ...