Case Title: PATRICK VALE SMITH V. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2007-09-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
PATRICK VALE SMITH V. THE STATE OF WYOMING2007 WY 150167 P.3d 644Case Number: 06-193Decided: 09/19/2007
APRIL TERM, A.D. 2007

 
 
PATRICK 
VALE SMITH,Appellant(Defendant),v.THE STATE OFWYOMING,Appellee(Plaintiff).

 
 
Appeal 
from the DistrictCourtofAlbanyCounty

 
 

Representing 
Appellant:

D. Terry 
Rogers, InterimState Public Defender; 
Donna D. Domonkos, Appellate Counsel; and David E. Westling, Senior Assistant 
Appellate Counsel.

 
 

Representing 
Appellee:

Patrick 
J. Crank, Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney General; D. 
Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Robin Sessions Cooley, 
Deputy Attorney General.

 
 
Before 
VOIGT, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, KITE, and BURKE, 
JJ.

 
 
VOIGT, 
Chief Justice.

 
 
[¶1]      Appellant, Patrick Vale Smith, claims 
reversible error occurred when a prosecutor, who Appellant claims represented 
him when he was charged with driving without insurance ten years earlier, argued 
for the State at his sentencing for various drug charges.  We affirm.

 
 
ISSUE

 
 
[¶2]      Is there reversible error where Appellant 
claims that one of the prosecutors, who argued at his sentencing for various 
drug charges, represented Appellant nearly ten years earlier when he was charged 
with driving without insurance, where Appellant did not object to the 
prosecutor's appearance at sentencing and where the only evidence of the earlier 
representation is a single document attached to Appellant's brief and not 
included in the official record?

 
 
FACTS

 
 
[¶3]      Appellant pled 
guilty to possession with intent to deliver methamphetamine, in violation of 
Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 35-7-1031(a)(i)(LexisNexis 2007), and to possession of 
marijuana, in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 35-7-1031(c)(ii)(LexisNexis 
2007).  Two different prosecutors 
handled the case in chief and argument at sentencing.  Appellant takes exception to the 
prosecutor who argued his sentencing, claiming that the prosecutor should not 
have been allowed to participate in Appellant's prosecution because he 
represented Appellant on a charge of driving without insurance nearly ten years 
ago.  Appellant did not object at 
sentencing.  No proof related to 
this allegation appears in the designated record.  Appellant relies solely on one document 
appended to his brief to support his argument on 
appeal.

 
 
STANDARD 
OF REVIEW

 
 
[¶4]      We will analyze 
Appellant's claim under plain error because Appellant failed to object to the 
alleged error at trial.  
Blumhagen v. State, 11 P.3d 889, 894 (Wyo. 2000).  Appellant must prove three things to 
meet the standard for reversible plain error. Id.  First, he must demonstrate that the 
record clearly presents the incident alleged to be error. Id.   Second, he must show that a clear 
and unequivocal rule of law was violated in a clear and obvious way.  Id.  Third and last, Appellant must prove 
that he was denied a substantial right resulting in material prejudice.  Id.

 
 
DISCUSSION

 
 
[¶5]      Here, Appellant 
cannot meet even the first requirement of the plain error analysis.  There is absolutely no evidence in the 
record of the error that forms the basis of this appeal.  Appellant has attached an uncertified 
document to his brief that purports to show that an attorney-client relationship 
existed between himself and the prosecutor he alleges represented him. 

 
 
[¶6]      "An appellant 
bears the burden of bringing to the reviewing court a sufficient record on which 
to base its decision, and he cannot supplement the appellate record by attaching 
documents to his brief."  In re 
Adoption of ADA, 2006 WY 49, ¶ 10 n.1, 132 P.3d 196, 201 n.1 (Wyo. 2006) 
(citations omitted).  We will, 
therefore, not consider the document attached to Appellant's brief in this 
case.  As no evidence pertaining to 
this error appears in the record, Appellant's argument is utterly unsupported by 
competent evidence. 

 
 

CONCLUSION

 
 
[¶7]      Appellant's 
argument that he had a previous attorney-client relationship with the 
prosecutor, and that therefore the prosecutor should have been barred from 
arguing at his sentencing, is not supported by the record.  We therefore affirm Appellant's 
conviction.