Case Title: Dotson v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 50500

State: nevada

Court: Nevada Supreme Court

Date: 2007-12-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
Dotson v. State1986 WY 4712 P.2d 365Case Number: 85-134Decided: 01/08/1986Supreme Court of Wyoming
GEORGE DOTSON, APPELLANT 
(DEFENDANT), 

 
 
v. 

 
 
THE STATE OF 
WYOMING, 
APPELLEE (PLAINTIFF).

 
 
Appeal from the District 
Court, ParkCounty, John T. Dixon, 
J.

 
 
 
 
Representing Appellant: 

Leonard D. Munker, State 
Public Defender, Martin J. McClain, Appellate Counsel, and Margaret Ann Maurer, 
Legal Intern, Wyo. Public Defender Program.

 
 
Representing Appellee: 

A.G. McClintock, Atty. 
Gen., Gerald A. Stack, Deputy Atty. Gen., John W. Renneisen, Sr. Asst. Atty. 
Gen., and Sharon L. Gwin, Student Intern.

 
 

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

* Retired November 30, 
1985.

GUTHRIE, Justice, 
Retired.

 
 

[¶1.]     Appellant here was 
tried for the crime of knowingly making a false statement and document required 
for the sale and transfer of a motor vehicle in violation of § 31-4-318, W.S. 
1977. At trial in the justice of the peace court, he was found guilty, and 
sentence was imposed. An appeal was pursued to the district court, and that 
judgment was affirmed. This appeal is taken then from that action of the 
district court.

 
 

[¶2.]     The prosecution in this 
case was conducted by Chris White, who was acting as a deputy county attorney in 
Park County, Wyoming. Mr. White was not at that time a 
member of the Wyoming State Bar, but was a member of the California State Bar 
and was admitted to the Wyoming State Bar approximately one month after this 
incident. It does not appear from the record that the appellant or his counsel 
was aware of this fact at the time of trial. When this became known to counsel 
and to appellant, a motion to dismiss upon this basis was made to the justice of 
the peace and was denied. This action and the conviction and judgment were 
affirmed by the district court on appeal.

 
 

[¶3.]     In this case, the 
appellant's argument is grounded upon the following:

"Whether the failure to 
comply with the rules and statutes governing the practice of law in the State of 
Wyoming 
deprived the justice court of jurisdiction to prosecute 
Appellant."

 
 

[¶4.]     The brief of the 
appellant here makes no claim of prejudice nor was any asserted in argument. 
Error which does not affect substantial rights is regarded as harmless and 
"shall be disregarded" on appeal. Rule 49(a), W.R.Cr.P.; Rule 23(g)(1), 
W.R.Cr.P.J.C. Our case law follows this rule. Appellant must show prejudice and 
has the burden of establishing that prejudice. Jackson v. State, Wyo., 624 P.2d 751, cert. denied 451 U.S. 989, 101 S. Ct. 2327, 68 L. Ed. 2d 848 (1981), and authorities cited; Belondon v. City of Casper, Wyo., 
456 P.2d 238 (1969), cert. denied 398 U.S. 927, 90 S. Ct. 1815, 26 L. Ed. 2d 89 
(1970). It is this rule, and the courts' frequent adherence to it, which 
apparently prompts this appellant to seek salvation upon the theory that a 
prosecution so conducted involves an error so grave that the court would lose 
jurisdiction of the case. The broad application of the rule requiring the 
demonstrated existence of prejudice in order to require reversal is so 
all-encompassing that even errors of constitutional dimension may not justify 
reversal as plain error. Hays v. State, Wyo., 522 P.2d 1004 
(1974).

 
 

[¶5.]     Appellant states in 
support of this contention that "[t]his concept is so fundamental to the fair 
administration of justice that it is a jurisdictional issue that cannot be 
waived, and can be raised at any time." Aside from this expression of opinion, 
we find no applicable authority for such a proposition as is contended for by 
the appellant. The brief would have greater value in a case involving the 
unlawful or unauthorized practice of law, but in no place does there appear to 
be any authority upon the narrow question which is directly posed here, which 
the Court conceives to be:

Does the appearance and 
prosecution of a case by a deputy county attorney who was not then a member of 
the Wyoming State Bar deprive the trial court of jurisdiction of the offense 
charged when the defendant is in no manner prejudiced?

 
 
The case of People v. Montoya, 44 Colo. App. 234, 616 P.2d 156 (1980), is applicable here because of its posture. In that case, as in this 
case, a motion to dismiss on the basis that the court lacked jurisdiction was 
made because members of the attorney general's office had been improperly 
appointed to appear as special prosecutors and, therefore, their appointments 
were invalid. In response to this contention, the court at page 162 
observed:

"* * * The eligibility of 
members of the Attorney General's office for appointment as special prosecutors 
has no bearing on the ultimate determination of guilt or innocence; even if 
ineligible as special prosecutors, the members of the Attorney General's office 
acted as de facto officers whose authority to prosecute Montoya may not now be 
challenged. [Citation.]" (Emphasis added.)

 
 

[¶6.]     In the case of Commonwealth v. Carpenter, 172 
Pa. Super. 
271, 94 A.2d 74 (1953), a defendant raised objection to the trial court having 
allowed private counsel to improperly participate in the prosecution. There the 
appellate court made the following observations at page 76 
:

"Likewise without merit 
is defendant's argument that the trial judge erred in permitting private counsel 
to participate in the prosecution. Defendant `had no legal concern with the 
personality of those selected by the Commonwealth to conduct the prosecution'. * 
* *"

 
 
Later in that paragraph, 
the court observed:

"* * * [D]efendant does 
not contend, that he did not conduct himself in an ethical and dispassionate 
manner. His deportment during the 
trial, not his participation in other proceedings adverse to defendant, is the controlling consideration. 
[Citations.]" (Emphasis added.)

 
 
This last quotation is 
particularly applicable here because in this case there is no charge of any 
wrongful conduct or unfair advantage being taken of this appellant because of 
Mr. White's appearance.

 
 

[¶7.]     It has been held in 
many cases that where the prosecuting attorney who conducts or helps conduct the 
prosecution is disqualified, if reversed, the remedy is the grant of a new 
trial. State v. Leigh, 178 Kan. 549, 289 P.2d 774 
(1955). These rulings are not consistent with a lack of 
jurisdiction.

 
 

[¶8.]     Appellant suggests that 
the case of People v. James, 150 
Misc. 390, 269 N.Y.S. 626 (1934), has some value in determination of this case. 
We have examined the same and find the factual situation makes it totally 
inapplicable. We also find it to be an opinion of the Delaware County 
Court hearing an appeal from a court of special 
sessions which would make it doubtful authority at best.

 
 

[¶9.]     It has come to this 
Court's attention in an earlier case, Pote v. State, Wyo., 695 P.2d 617 
(1985), that Chris White was participating in prosecutions in Park County as a 
deputy prosecuting attorney, although he was not a member of the Wyoming State 
Bar. In response to the appellant's complaint about this situation, the opinion 
noted, at page 631, that this had not been brought to the attention of the trial 
court and was not before the Court, with this comment, however: "Appellant has 
not shown how this circumstance prejudiced him." District Judge Hanscum, sitting 
by assignment, in a concurrence noted that this participation was error but 
found no prejudice. We find these observations of value in this 
case.

 
 

[¶10.]  Appellant cannot, by the appellate 
process, effect a metamorphosis which changes a trial error or irregularity, 
which is not prejudicial to the defendant and is not of constitutional dignity, 
into a jurisdictional defect. To hold this would tend to confirm the belief that 
some hold that criminal appeals do not concern themselves with the facts, 
justice, or fair trials, but rather are a search for an excuse to reverse 
criminal convictions.

 
 

[¶11.]  Although the State, in defense of this 
judgment, also submits argument that Mr. White's appearance was not violative of 
the then rules, because we are satisfied with the lower court's disposition 
hereof, and in light of the fact that there has been an amendment of these rules 
which requires the physical presence of a Wyoming State Bar member with an 
out-of-state lawyer, such a situation can never recur, and discussion would have 
no value.

 
 

[¶12.]  The judgment is 
affirmed.