Because Woodyard’s counsel didn’t raise this issue in the district court, we won’t reverse unless any error was plain. See People v. Zadra, 2017 CO 18, ¶ 18, 389 P.3d 885. Plain error is error that is obvious and that so undermined the fundamental fairness of the proceeding as to cast serious doubt on the reliability of the judgment.

So we see "[n]othing on the face of the charging document" that "revealed a defect to which [Curtis] could have properly objected." People v. Wester-Gravelle , 2020 CO 64, ¶ 23, 465 P.3d 570 ; see also People v. Zadra , 2013 COA 140, ¶¶ 65-66, 396 P.3d 34 (recognizing that federal appellate courts uniformly apply Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(2) "where the defect is apparent from the face of the charges") (citations omitted), aff'd on other grounds , 2017 CO 18, ¶ 18, 389 P.3d 885. ¶ 13 To the extent Curtis's claim can be characterized as an objection to the information at all, it appears to be a substantive one.

That is so, they say, because defendant didn't make a multiplicity challenge under Crim. P. 12(b). But the supreme court recently rejected this argument in People v. Zadra, 2017 CO 18, ¶ 17, 389 P.3d 885, and Reyna-Abarca v. People, 2017 CO 15, ¶¶ 38-45, 390 P.3d 816. The Double Jeopardy Clauses of the United States and Colorado Constitutions protect "against multiple punishments for the same offense."