Case Title: STATEZNY v. STATE

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2001-02-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
STATEZNY v. STATE2001 WY 2218 P.3d 641Case Number: 00-119Decided: 02/28/2001
 OCTOBER 
TERM, A.D. 2000  

February 28, 2001   

 

DENNIS 
EUGENE STATEZNY,

Appellant

(Defendant),

 

v.

 

THE 
STATE OF WYOMING

Appellee

(Plaintiff).

 

Appeal 
from the District Court of Lincoln County

The 
Honorable John D. Troughton, Judge

 

Representing 
Appellant:

Sylvia 
Lee Hackl, State Public Defender; Donna D. Domonkos, Appellate Counsel, and Ryan 
R. Roden, Assistant Appellate Counsel.  
Argument by Mr. Roden.

 Representing 
Appellee:

Gay 
Woodhouse, Wyoming Attorney General; Paul S. Rehurek, Deputy Attorney General; 
D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Robin Sessions 
Cooley, Senior Assistant Attorney General.  
Argument by Ms. Cooley.

  

Before 
LEHMAN, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, and KITE, JJ.

             
HILL, Justice.

 

[¶1]      Appellant, Dennis 
Eugene Statezny, challenges his conviction for unlawful clandestine laboratory 
operations.  He contends that the 
statutes governing that crime are unconstitutionally vague both facially and as 
applied to the facts of this case.  
Continuing with that argument, he contends that he was denied due process 
of law because the governing statutes provide no standard of conduct or notice 
of forbidden conduct, thus allowing for arbitrary and discriminatory 
enforcement.  Statezny also 
maintains that his conviction is not supported by substantial 
evidence.

 

[¶2]      We 
affirm.

 

ISSUES

 

[¶3]      Statezny advances 
these issues:

 

I.  Whether W.S. § 35-7-1058 and W.S. § 
35-7-1059 are unconstitutionally vague facially and as applied to the facts of 
this case, denying him due process of law, because they provide no standard of 
conduct or notice of forbidden conduct and it allows for arbitrary and 
discriminatory enforcement?

 

II.  Whether Appellant's conviction for 
possession with intent to engage in unlawful clandestine laboratory operations 
can stand when insufficient evidence supports it?

 

Those 
same issues are essentially echoed in the State's statement of the issue on 
appeal.

 

FACTS

 

[¶4]      Before we set out 
the operative facts of this case, it is useful to provide the wording of the 
statutes at issue here.  Wyo. Stat. 
Ann. § 35-7-1058 (LEXIS 1999) provides in pertinent part:

 

(a)  As used in this 
article:

. . . 
.

            
(ii)  "Clandestine laboratory 
operation" means:

(A)  Purchasing 
or procuring chemicals, supplies, equipment or a laboratory location for the 
illegal manufacture of controlled substances;

(B)  Transporting 
or arranging for the transportation of chemicals, supplies or equipment for the 
illegal manufacture of controlled substances;

(C)  Setting 
up equipment or supplies in preparation for the illegal manufacture of 
controlled substances; or

(D)  Distributing 
or disposing of chemicals, equipment, supplies or products used in or produced 
by the illegal manufacture of controlled substances.

            
. . . .

            
(iv)  "Equipment" or "laboratory equipment" means all products, 
components or materials of any kind when used, intended for use or designed for 
use in the manufacture, preparation, production, compounding, conversion or 
processing of a controlled substance in violation of this article.  "Equipment" or "laboratory equipment" 
includes:

                        
(A)  Glass reaction 
vessel;

                        
(B)  Separatory 
funnel;

                        
(C)  Glass 
condenser;

                        
(D)  Analytical balance; 
or

                        
(E)  Heating 
mantle.

            
. . . .

            
(vi)  "List I controlled substance precursor" means, including 
a chemical reagent, any salt, isomer or salt of an isomer 
of:

            
. . . .

                        
(H)  
Ephedrine;

            
. . . .

            
(vii)  "List II controlled substance precursor" means, 
including a chemical reagent, any salt, isomer or salt of an isomer 
of:

            
. . . .

                        
(B)  
Acetone;

            
. . . .

                        
(E) Hydrochloric acid;

 

[¶5]      Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
35-7-1059 provides:

 

   (a)  It is unlawful for 
any person to knowingly or intentionally:

         
(i)  Possess a List I or II controlled substance precursor with 
the intent to engage in a clandestine laboratory 
operation;

            
(ii)  Possess laboratory equipment or supplies with the intent 
to engage in a clandestine laboratory operation;

            
(iii)  Sell, distribute or otherwise supply a List I or II 
controlled substance precursor, laboratory equipment or laboratory supplies 
knowing it will be used for a clandestine laboratory 
operation;

            
(iv)  Conspire with or aid another to engage in a clandestine 
laboratory operation.

   (b)  A person who 
violates subsection (a) of this section is guilty of a felony punishable by 
imprisonment for not more than twenty (20) years, a fine of not more than 
twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00), or both.

   (c)  A person who 
violates subsection (a) of this section is guilty of a felony punishable by 
imprisonment for not more than twenty-five (25) years, a fine of not more than 
fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00), or both if the judge or jury also finds any 
one (1) of the following conditions occurred in conjunction with that 
violation:

            
(i)  Illegal possession, transportation or disposal of 
hazardous or dangerous material or while transporting or causing to be 
transported materials in furtherance of a clandestine laboratory operation, 
there was created a substantial risk to human health or safety or a danger to 
the environment;

            
(ii)  The intended laboratory operation was to take place or 
did take place within five hundred (500) feet of a residence, business, church 
or school; or

            
(iii)  Any phase of the clandestine laboratory operation was 
conducted in the presence of a person less than eighteen (18) years of 
age.

   (d)  A person who 
violates subsection (a) of this section is guilty of a felony punishable by 
imprisonment for not more than forty (40) years, a fine of not more than one 
hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00), or both if the judge or jury also finds 
any one (1) of the following conditions occurred in conjunction with that 
violation:

            
(i)  Use of a firearm;

            
(ii)  Use of a booby trap.

 

[¶6]      The facts which 
form the basis for Statezny's conviction follow.  We note, before setting them out, that 
Statezny represented himself in the trial court, and he did not testify or 
present any evidence in his own behalf.  
He did cross-examine many of the State's witnesses.  On August 21, 1999, a resident of Afton 
called the Afton Police Department to assist her in inspecting an apartment for 
which the rent was past due.  The 
tenant had quit the premises, and an unknown male person was apparently living 
in the apartment.  Although the 
apartment was locked, it was possible to gain access to it through a window 
(eventually the police advised the apartment's owner to place a large stick in 
the window to prevent it from being opened from the outside).  The apartment was above an Afton 
business, the Cowboy Bar.

 

]¶7]      While the police 
officer was there, he noticed a marijuana plant in the living room.  As a result of that observation, the 
police obtained a warrant to search the apartment.  The police returned on August 22, 1999, 
to conduct that search.  The 
marijuana plant was seized.1  During the course of that search, the 
police found other incriminating evidence that included drug paraphernalia and 
other items that appeared to be associated with a clandestine drug 
operation.  As a result of that 
discovery, the police obtained a second search warrant.  During that search, the police found and 
seized a Coleman gas stove, Statezny's driver's license, a bottle of PH test 
strips, two used syringes, pay stubs belonging to Statezny, two chemistry books, 
an Ace Glass ordering catalogue, a physics book, a set of scales, an antler 
smoking pipe, a brass smoking pipe, empty pill capsules, and neoprene 
gloves.  The police also discovered 
some tubing that was found to have residue that tested positive for 
pseudoephedrine, a precursor of methamphetamine, a bottle of 99% isopropyl 
alcohol, a broken glass beaker, a glass coffee decanter that contained the empty 
pill capsules, a gallon can of acetone, a gallon can of Coleman fuel, several 
boxes of Efidac 24, a baggy containing a tan solid substance, and one gallon of 
hydrochloric acid.

 

[¶8]      Statezny was 
arrested pursuant to warrant, and one of the items found in his personal effects 
was a baggy of a white powdery substance that turned out to be 
methamphetamine.  Because of the 
danger posed by the volatility of chemicals used in the operation of a 
clandestine drug laboratory, such materials must be handled with great 
care.

 

[¶9]      The tenant who 
rented the apartment above the Cowboy Bar testified that she saw Statezny bring 
the chemicals and laboratory equipment into the apartment, and that Statezny 
occupied the west bedroom where much of that material was found.  She also testified that prior to the 
searches, she had vacated the apartment and left Statezny in charge of the whole 
place.  In addition, she related a 
story of asking Statezny what he was going to do with all the items he was 
bringing into the apartment, "cook up a batch of crank?"  Statezny's reply was that he could not 
because his glassware was broken.  
The record also revealed that another acquaintance of Statezny's observed 
broken glassware, belonging to him, in a storage unit.  That acquaintance also observed that 
Statezny seemed very concerned about where the broken glassware had been 
disposed of and wanted to know in what dumpster the acquaintance had put 
it.

 

[¶10]   In addition to this evidence, an 
expert witness from the Wyoming State Crime Laboratory, whose credentials 
included training with the Clandestine Laboratory Investigation Association, 
testified.  Her testimony 
demonstrated that many of the items possessed by Statezny were the resources 
typically found in clandestine drug operations.  As an example, one exhibit entered into 
evidence by the State tested positive for isopropanol, a solvent that can be 
used to extract ephedrine from tablets or pills, such as the Efidac seized from 
the apartment where Statezny set up his lab.  Acetone can also be used in that same 
process, which then eventuates in the production of methamphetamine.  Hydrochloric acid is also a chemical 
used in the illegal manufacture of methamphetamine.

 

CONSTITUTIONALITY 
OF CLANDESTINE

LABORATORY 
OPERATIONS STATUTES

 

[¶11]   The issues raised in this appeal 
with respect to the constitutionality of the clandestine laboratory operations 
statutes were not raised before the trial court.  As a general rule, in the absence of 
fundamental or plain error (which Statezny does not argue here), we will not 
consider the unconstitutionality of a statute if the question is not raised in 
the trial court.  Not even all 
errors of constitutional dimension justify reversal under the plain-error 
doctrine, which should only be applied where the error would seriously affect 
the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.  See Hopkinson v. State, 664 P.2d 43, 50 (Wyo. 1983); and Britton v. State, 976 P.2d 669, 671 (Wyo. 
1999).  In the Hopkinson case 
we deviated from our usual rule because it was a death penalty case, but no such 
exigency is present here.  Where 
such an argument is not made in the court below, and not articulated on appeal 
with cogent argument and pertinent authority, we decline to address it.  Davis v. State, 859 P.2d 89, 94 
(Wyo. 1993); also see Sodergren v. State, 715 P.2d 170, 174-75 (Wyo. 
1986); and Jahnke v. State, 692 P.2d 911, 928 (Wyo. 
1984).

 

[¶12]   Moreover, challenging a statute as 
facially unconstitutional based on vagueness requires that the statute reach a 
substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct or that it specifies no 
standard of conduct at all.  The 
ultimate test is whether a person of ordinary intelligence could read the 
statute and comprehend the conduct prohibited.  Campbell v. State, 999 P.2d 649, 
657 (Wyo. 2000).  In addition, every 
statute is presumed to be constitutional.  
While penal statutes are to be strictly construed, they need not be given 
unnecessarily narrow meaning in disregard of the obvious legislative purpose and 
intent.  
Id.

 

[¶13]   The thrust of Statezny's argument 
is that he was merely in possession of common household chemicals, as well as 
other items that are as common in wholly innocent settings as they are in 
clandestine laboratory operations.  
We have set out the evidence against him in detail above, and we have set 
out the statutes in detail.  First, 
Statezny was in possession of more than just innocent household chemicals.  He possessed methamphetamine 
precursors.  Secondly, the governing 
statutes require the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he not only 
possessed those sorts of things, but that he possessed them with intent to 
engage in a clandestine laboratory operation.  Given the testimony of his co-tenant 
that Statezny was prepared to cook up a batch of "crank," the fact that 
ephedrine was found in a piece of tubing seized from the apartment, and that 
Statezny possessed methamphetamine at the time of his arrest, the jury could 
readily infer that he possessed the disputed chemicals with the intent to 
manufacture methamphetamine.  
Indeed, from our reading of the evidence, Statezny might well have been 
convicted of the more serious crime described in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
35-7-1059(c)(ii), rather than § 35-7-1059(a).

 

[¶14]   We decline to further consider the 
constitutionality of the clandestine laboratory operations statute under these 
circumstances, where we find no suggestion that the statutes are 
unconstitutional on the face of things, or as applied to 
Statezny.

 

SUFFICIENCY 
OF THE EVIDENCE

 

[¶15]   The benchmark for review of 
sufficiency of the evidence claims is whether the evidence, when viewed in the 
light most favorable to the State, is such as to permit a reasonable trier of 
fact to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  Mora v. State, 984 P.2d 477, 481 
(Wyo. 1999); Rowe v. State, 974 P.2d 937, 940-41 (Wyo. 1999).  As set out more fully above, the 
evidence is more than sufficient for the jury to have found Statezny guilty of 
the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[¶16]   We affirm the judgment and sentence 
of the district court, in all respects.

 

FOOTNOTES

   1It is apparent from the record that 
the marijuana plant did not belong to Statezny, but rather to the tenant, who 
had failed to pay the rent and who had permitted Statezny to use the 
apartment.