Case Title: Holmes v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: nevada

Court: Nevada Supreme Court

Date: 2008-11-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
Holmes v. State1986 WY 59715 P.2d 196Case Number: 85-152Decided: 03/05/1986Supreme Court of Wyoming
PAUL D. HOLMES, APPELLANT (DEFENDANT),

 
 
v. 

 
 
THE STATE OFWYOMING, 
APPELLEE (PLAINTIFF).

 
 
Rehearing Denied April 
14, 1986.

 
 
Appeal from the District 
Court, AlbanyCounty, Arthur T. Hanscum. 
J.

 
 
 
 
Representing 
Appellant:

Leonard D. Munker, State 
Public Defender, Martin J. McClain, Appellate Counsel, and Denise Nau, Asst. 
Appellate Counsel, Wyoming Public Defender Program, Cheyenne, for 
appellant.

 
 
Representing 
Appellee:

A.G. McClintock, Atty. 
Gen., Gerald A. Stack, Deputy Atty. Gen., Criminal Div., John W. Renneisen, Sr. 
Asst. Atty. Gen., and Darold W. Killmer, Legal Intern, Cheyenne, for 
appellee.

 
 
Before THOMAS, C.J., and 
ROONEY,* BROWN, CARDINE and URBIGKIT, 
JJ.

* Retired November 30, 
1985.

 
 

THOMAS, Chief 
Justice.

 
 

[¶1.]     In this case the 
appellant contends that the sentencing judge abused his discretion in imposing 
sentence, and that the failure to hold a coroner's inquest prevented the 
district court from acquiring jurisdiction in the criminal case. The contentions 
of the appellant are without merit, and the judgment of the district court is 
affirmed.

 
 

[¶2.]     It is remarkable that 
the appellant perceives any abuse of discretion with respect to the sentence 
which was imposed. He originally was charged with murder in the first degree 
involving kidnapping and burglary as aggravating circumstances, a capital 
offense. The killing itself is best described as an execution. Pursuant to a 
plea bargain the appellant entered a plea of guilty to a charge of second degree 
murder in violation of § 6-2-104 W.S. 1977. His plea of guilty was accepted, and 
he was "sentenced to a term of not less than twenty-eight (28) years nor more 
than life in the Wyoming State Penitentiary." The statute provides for a 
sentence of not less than twenty years or during life, and the sentence imposed 
was within the statutory limits.

 
 

[¶3.]     The rule is clear in 
this jurisdiction that there is no error in the imposition of a sentence by a 
trial court so long as the sentence is within the statutory limit authorized by 
the legislature. Wright v. State, 
Wyo., 707 P.2d 153 (1985), and cases cited therein. While those cases recognize a possibility 
of finding a clear abuse of discretion, that phrase has been defined as an error 
of law under the circumstances. Martinez v. State, Wyo., 611 P.2d 831 
(1980). There can be no error of law with respect to a sentence that falls 
within the statutory limits. Furthermore, the record in this case reflects that 
the sentencing judge gave careful and substantial consideration to all relevant 
factors in determining an appropriate sentence to impose. There is no reviewable 
error in connection with the sentence.

 
 

[¶4.]     Somewhat casually at 
oral argument, counsel for the appellant suggested that the court should 
consider the appeal as a petition for certiorari, apparently invoking the 
concepts articulated in Wright v. 
State, supra. That approach is so far short of demonstrating a rare and 
unusual case in accordance with Wright v. 
State, supra, that we must admonish the appellant and counsel that we will 
not even consider the invocation of the remedy of certiorari in such an informal 
context.

 
 

[¶5.]     The second claim of 
error is diametrically opposed to existing authority in this state. In Raigosa v. State, Wyo., 562 P.2d 1009, 1015 
(1977), this court held that "[t]here is no requirement that an inquest be held 
before prosecution for murder." The justification for that holding is the same 
now as it was then. The pertinent part of § 7-4-201, W.S. 1977 (1984 Cum. Supp.) 
is identical to § 7-81, W.S. 1957 (1975 Cum.Supp.) at issue in Raigosa. The 
appellant's effort to present an issue contrary to clear precedent in this case 
borders upon the presentation of a specious appeal. In Raigosa v. State, supra, we noted that 
the purpose of a coroner's inquest is to aid in the determination that a death 
was not unlawfully caused. In light of the record in this case which establishes 
five bullet wounds in the victim's body and Holmes' plea of guilty, the 
coroner's inquest would have been an exercise in futility. Holmes admitted by 
his plea all the essential elements of the offense including the fact that he 
had killed the victim unlawfully. Tompkins v. State, Wyo., 705 P.2d 836 (1985); Kallas v. State, Wyo., 704 P.2d 693 (1985); Armijo v. State, Wyo., 678 P.2d 864 (1984); Small v. State, Wyo., 623 P.2d 1200 
(1981). Holmes' plea to the district court resolved any matters that could have 
been of concern to a coroner's jury. The inquest was not necessary to serve the 
public interest and Holmes had no private interest to be 
served.

 
 

[¶6.]     
Affirmed.

 
 

CARDINE, Justice, specially 
concurring.

 
 

[¶7.]     I concur in the result 
of this case. I continue to assert that sentences imposed are reviewable upon 
appeal for abuse of discretion.