Case Title: IN THE MATTER OF TWENTY-TWO FIREARMS, AND ASSORTED AMMUNITION COMPONENTS: DOBSON

Citation: 

Docket Number: 02-55

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2003-01-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE MATTER OF TWENTY-TWO FIREARMS, AND ASSORTED AMMUNITION COMPONENTS: DOBSON2003 WY 663 P.3d 209Case Number: 02-55Decided: 01/17/2003Cite as 2003 WY 6N
OCTOBER TERM, A.D. 2002

 

                                                                                                
   

 

IN 
THE MATTER OF TWENTY TWO

FIREARMS, 
and ASSORTED AMMUNITION

COMPONENTS:

 

JAMES 
ELMER DOBSON,

 

Appellant(Interested 
Party) ,

 

v.

 

STEVE 
J. STAHLA,

SHERIFF 
OF CROOK COUNTY,

 

Appellee(Plaintiff) 
.

 

Appeal 
from the District Court of Crook County

The 
Honorable John R. Perry, Judge

 

Representing 
Appellant:

 

Representing 
Appellee:

Bill 
Rice, Deputy County and Prosecuting Attorney of Crook County, Sundance, 
Wyoming.

 

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

 

            
PER CURIAM.

 

[¶1]      The pro se 
appellant, James Elmer Dobson (Dobson), a convicted felon, appeals from a 
Judgment of Forfeiture that ordered the sale of twenty-two firearms and assorted 
ammunition components seized from him.  
Concluding that Dobson's brief is unsupported by the record, cogent 
argument, or citation to pertinent authority, we summarily affirm this appeal 
pursuant to W.R.A.P. 1.03.

 

ISSUES

 

[¶2]      Dobson presents 
the following questions for review:

 

I.                     
Are 
adversarial proceedings still legal in the State of Wyoming? 

 

II.                   
Is 
the transfer of personal property by and through a Power of Attorney legal in 
the State of Wyoming?

 

III.                  
Is 
the Constitution of [the] United State of America, and the Constitution of the 
State of Wyoming still recognized by the Supreme Court for the State of Wyoming? 

 

 

FACTS

 

[¶3]      On December 13, 
2001, the Sheriff of Crook County filed, in the district court, a Petition for 
Order to Show Cause.  The petition 
alleged that the sheriff was in possession of twenty-two firearms and various 
ammunition components seized from Dobson.  
It further alleged that Dobson was a convicted felon and, as such, return 
of the firearms and ammunition to Dobson would be illegal pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 
§ 922(d)(1).  The petition requested 
that the district court issue an order for Dobson to show cause why the firearms 
and ammunition should not be "sold or forfeited and sold at public auction or 
transferred to the use of the Crook County Sheriff's Office."  One week later, the district court, 
relying on Wyo.Stat.Ann. § 7-2-105 (LexisNexis 2001), issued the requested order 
to show cause.

 

[¶4]      On February 7, 
2002, the matter came before the district court for a hearing.  Dobson personally appeared.  Following the hearing, the district 
court entered its Judgment of Forfeiture, which ordered that the firearms and 
ammunition "shall be sold at public auction pursuant to W.S. 7-2-105(k)."  Dobson appealed.  In his brief, the sheriff asserts that 
he has retained the weapons and ammunition pending resolution of this 
appeal.

 

DISCUSSION

 

[¶5]                  
We have often stated . . . that we expect pro se litigants to comply with 
the Wyoming rules of appellate procedure in the same way that trained lawyers 
are expected to perform.  Stone 
v. Stone, 842 P.2d 545, 547 (Wyo.1992); Hamburg v. Heilbrun, 889 P.2d 967, 968 (Wyo.1995); Korkow v. Markle, 746 P.2d 434, 435 (Wyo.1987); 
Pinther v. Webb, 983 P.2d 1221, 1223 (Wyo.1999).  While we may make allowances for pro 
se litigants, they are not excused from the requirement that their brief be 
supported by cogent argument and citations to pertinent authority.  Baker v. Reed, 965 P.2d 1153, 
1154 (Wyo.1998).

 

Stone 
v. Stone, 
7 P.3d 887, 890-91 (Wyo. 2000).  
"For more than thirty-five years, this Court has summarily affirmed cases 
or issues in cases that are not presented with cogent argument or pertinent 
authority."  Hamburg v. 
Heilbrun, 891 P.2d 85, 87 (Wyo.1995); see also State ex rel. Reece v. 
Wyoming State Board of Outfitters and Professional Guides, 931 P.2d 958, 959 
(Wyo. 1997).  In addition, "[u]nder 
this court's long-standing precedent, this court will not frame the issues for 
the litigants and will not consider issues not raised by them and not supported 
by cogent argument and authoritative citation."  State v. Campbell County School 
District, 2001 WY 90, ¶35, 32 P.3d 325, ¶35 (Wyo. 
2001).

 

[¶6]      In addition to 
failing to comply with various provisions of W.R.A.P. 7.01 regarding content of 
the brief, Dobson's brief is not supported by cogent argument, citation to 
pertinent authority, or the record on appeal.  With respect to "issues" one and three, 
they are nothing more than vitriol.  
Clearly, adversarial proceedings are legal in this state, and the cited 
constitutions remain the law of this state.  As for issue number two, Dobson relies 
on a power of attorney appended to his brief.  The power of attorney is not part of the 
record on appeal, and Dobson has made no attempt to have the record supplemented 
or modified.  See W.R.A.P. 
3.04.  Because the power of attorney 
is not properly part of the record on appeal, Dobson is precluded from relying 
on it.  See Basolo v. Gose, 
994 P.2d 968, 969-70 (Wyo. 2000).  
Even if the power of attorney were part of the record on appeal, Dobson 
presents no cogent argument to establish how the power of attorney (in which 
Dobson grants power of attorney to relatives) would preclude the judgment of 
forfeiture.

 

[¶7]      Furthermore, 
Dobson's brief does not cite to a single case, perhaps with good reason.  A recent Wyoming case, Taylor v. 
State, 7 P.3d 15 (Wyo. 2000), clearly supports the district court's 
ruling.  There, this Court 
wrote:

 

[W]e 
agree that 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(1) prevented the return to Taylor of the illegally 
seized items.  18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(1) 
states that it is "unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of" any 
firearm or ammunition to any person who is under indictment or convicted of a 
crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.  Since Taylor's pending charge fell 
within the prohibitions of this section, Taylor could not lawfully demand the 
return of the firearms and ammunition.

 

The 
same reasoning applies to Taylor's second request for return of these items at 
sentencing.  As a convicted felon, 
Taylor was not entitled to possess firearms or ammunition.  18 U.S.C. § 922(g); see also United 
States v. Bagley, 899 F.2d 707, 708 (8th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 938, 111 S. Ct. 343, 112 L. Ed. 2d 307 (1990).  Therefore, the district court did not 
err in ordering these items to remain in the possession of law enforcement, 
subject to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-2-105 (Lexis 1999)

 

7 P.3d  at 23-24.  Under this 
precedent, Dobson, as a convicted felon, was not entitled to possess firearms or 
ammunition, and he has cited to no authority that establishes 
otherwise.

 

[¶8]      Finally, even if 
this Court were to decipher Dobson's arguments, we have no means of reviewing 
the evidence received at hearing.  
Dobson failed to provide this Court with a transcript to review, and he 
has made no attempt to prepare a statement of the evidence.  In the absence of a transcript or an 
approved statement of the hearing as provided under W.R.A.P. 3.03, "the 
regularity of the trial court's judgment and the competency of the evidence upon 
which that judgment is based must be presumed."  Burt v. Burt, 2002 WY 127, ¶7, 53 P.3d 101, ¶7 (Wyo. 2002); Thomas v. Thomas, 983 P.2d 717, 721 (Wyo. 
1999).  The responsibility for 
presenting a sufficient record fell upon Dobson, and he has failed to fulfill 
that responsibility.  Feaster v. 
Feaster, 721 P.2d 1095, 1096 (Wyo. 1986).

 

[¶9]      With no 
transcript to review, no cogent argument, and no citation to pertinent 
authority, we conclude that the district court's Judgment of Forfeiture must be, 
and hereby is, summarily affirmed pursuant to W.R.A.P. 
1.03.