appeals therefore erred in reversing the judgments of conviction. Ill Kruse, in his answer brief in this court, also argues for the first time that his rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution were violated because he was not given a Miranda warning by Ortiz and was not advised that he had the right to consult with an attorney before, making a statement. Kruse did not raise the constitutional claims in the district court or in the court of appeals. Kruse also failed to file a cross-petition for certiorari from the court of appeals or to even respond to the prosecution’s petition for certiorari. Kruse’s constitutional arguments are not properly before us for review on certiorari. See Vigoda v. Denver Urban Renewal Auth., 646 P.2d 900, 907 (Colo.1982) (<HOLDING>); Sherman Agency v. Carey, 195 Colo. 277, 280,
holding that an issue not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal holding that issue raised only in answer brief cannot be said to be fairly within issues raised by petition for certiorari holding that issues not raised before the trial court cannot be raised on appeal holding that issues not raised in the trial court may not be raised later on appeal holding issues not raised in appellate brief are waived