is prohibited by the rule of lenity. Under this tool of interpretation, courts must interpret an ambiguous law in favor of a criminal defendant. People v. Lowe, 660 P.2d 1261, 1267 (Colo.1983), abrogated on other grounds by Callis v. People, 692 P.2d 1045, 1052 (Colo.1984). But the rule of lenity is a rule of last resort that we apply only if ambiguity remains after we have exhausted all other tools of interpretation. See People v. Thoro Prods. Co., 70 P.3d 1188, 1195-98 (Colo.2003) (attempting to ascertain the meaning of a provision of the Colorado Hazardous Waste Management Act by turning to legislative history and harmonizing the provision with relevant federal laws before applying the rule of lenity); see also United States v. Rentz, 777 F.3d 1105, 1113 (10th Cir.2015) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). Here, our application of Colorado rules of
recognizing that the rule of lenity applies only after courts exhaust all other evidence of congressional meaning holding that the rule of lenity applies to sentencing guidelines holding the rule of lenity inapplicable where the defendants interpretation failed to give meaning to each statutory provision recognizing that the rule of lenity applies not only to interpretations of the substantive ambit of criminal prohibitions but also to the penalties they impose holding that the rule of lenity applies only if the provision being construed is still ambiguous after the application of normal rules of construction