Case Title: JAMES MARTIN HARLOW V. THE STATE OF WYOMING; JAMES MARTIN HARLOW aka THORVALDR SIGWOLF v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2005-02-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
JAMES MARTIN HARLOW V. THE STATE OF WYOMING; JAMES MARTIN HARLOW aka THORVALDR SIGWOLF v. THE STATE OF WYOMING2005 WY 16105 P.3d 1078Case Number:  99-58, 59, 60, 04-101Decided: 02/09/2005
 
 
 
 
         
October Term, A.D. 2004

 
 
 
 

 

JAMES MARTIN 
HARLOW,

 
 
Appellant

(Defendant),

 
 
v.

 
 
THE 
STATE OFWYOMING,

 
 
Appellee

(Plaintiff).

 
 
 
 
JAMES MARTIN 
HARLOW,

aka THORVALDR 
SIGWOLF,

 
 
Petitioner,

 
 
v.

 
 
THE STATE OF WYOMING,

 
 
Respondent.

 

 
 

This matter came before the Court upon its own motion following 
publication of this Court's opinion in Docket Number 04-101, Harlow v. 
State, 2005 WY 12, __ P.3d __ (Wyo. 2005).  In that opinion, this Court affirmed the 
denial of Mr. Harlow's petition for post-conviction relief and remanded the case 
to the district court for issuance of a new warrant for the execution of Mr. 
Harlow's sentence.  Id. at ¶ 88.  In previous orders in Docket Numbers 
99-58, 59, and 60, this Court had continued the stay of execution of Mr. 
Harlow's sentence pending judicial review that followed his direct appeal.  Most recently, by order filed May 14, 
2004, this Court continued the stay of execution of Mr. Harlow's sentence 
pending this Court's review of his Petition for Writ of Review filed in Docket 
Number 04-101.  See Harlow v. State, 2004 WY 55, 90 P.3d 92 
(Wyo. 2004).  Now, following the 
issuance of this Court's opinion in Docket Number 04-101 and the remand of this 
case to the district court for issuance of a new warrant, this Court finds that 
it is no longer appropriate for this Court to continue the stay of execution of 
Mr. Harlow's sentence.  Instead, 
this Court finds that any request for a stay should first be directed to the 
district court, or to any tribunal that Mr. Harlow deems appropriate.  Therefore, with respect to Docket 
Numbers 99-58, 59, and 60, this Court finds that, to the extent those cases 
remain open, those cases should be closed.  
Further, this Court notes that, pursuant to W.R.A.P. 13.07, no petition 
for rehearing is permitted in Docket Number 04-101.  Thus, on February 7, 2005, this Court 
issued its Mandate Affirming Judgment in Docket Number 04-101.  While such a mandate effectively closed 
that case, this Court hereby clarifies that Docket Number 04-101 is also 
closed.  It is, therefore, 

 
 

ORDERED 
that the above captioned cases be, and hereby are, closed.  

 
 

DATED 
this 9th day of 
February, 2005.

                                    

                                    
BY THE COURT:*

 
 
 
 
                                                                        
MICHAEL GOLDEN JUSTICE

 

*Before Justices Golden, Voigt, and Burke; and 
District Court Judges Sullins and Young sitting by 
appointment.