Title: Hultgren v. State

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

MARTIN HULTGREN v. THE STATE OF WYOMING2011 WY 139Case Number: No. S-11-023Decided: 10/04/2011NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in Pacific Reporter Third. Readers are requested to notify the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002, of any typographical or other formal errors so correction may be made before final publication in the permanent volume
OCTOBER 
TERM, A.D. 2011
 
MARTIN 
HULTGREN,Appellant(Defendant),v.THE STATE OF 
WYOMING,Appellee(Plaintiff).
 
Appeal 
from the District Court of Campbell County
The 
Honorable John R. Perry, Judge 
 
Representing 
Appellant:
Diane 
Lozano, State Public Defender; Tina N. Olson, Appellate Counsel; and Kirk A. 
Morgan, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel.
 
Representing 
Appellee:
Gregory 
A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney 
General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Stewart M. 
Young, Faculty Director, Prosecution Assistance Program; and Joshua Beau Taylor, 
Student Director.
 
Before 
KITE, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, VOIGT, and BURKE, 
JJ.
 
HILL, 
Justice.
 
[¶1]      After a bench 
trial, the district court held appellant Martin Hultgren (Hultgren) in criminal 
contempt, due to his failure to comply with the terms of a dispositional order 
entered in a juvenile case.  This is 
an appeal from the district court’s “Judgment and Sentence (Criminal Contempt of 
Court).”  We 
will affirm, because the basis for Hultgren’s claim of error no longer exists, 
thanks to the district court’s entry of its “Judgment and Sentence (Criminal 
Contempt of Court) Nunc Pro Tunc.”
 
FACTS
 
[¶2]      This case began 
on May 11, 2010, when the Campbell County Attorney filed a “Motion for Order to 
Show Cause Why Defendant Ought Not be Held in Criminal Contempt of Court.”  The show cause motion alleged that 
Hultgren failed to comply with the terms and conditions of a January, 2010 order 
of disposition that was filed in a juvenile case.  The juvenile case involves the daughter 
of Hultgren’s fiancée.  Hultgren was 
made a party to the juvenile case as a “significant other.”  The show cause motion alleged 
that Hultgren violated the juvenile court order in six ways.  The district court immediately issued an 
“Order to Show Cause and Order to Appear (Criminal Contempt of 
Court).”
 
[¶3]      On May 25, 2010, 
the district court held an arraignment-type hearing.  At the outset of the hearing, the State 
made an oral motion to amend the charge--to conform the charge to what was 
alleged in the affidavit that supported the motion for order to show cause.  The district court granted the 
motion.  Thus, the amended charge 
alleged that Hultgren violated the juvenile court order in three ways (not 
six):  (1) He failed to comply with 
Department of Family Services’ (DFS) requests that he submit, every weekend, to 
extractions of bodily substances for testing; (2) he consumed alcohol; and (3) 
he was in the presence of alcohol.  
The district court entered a not guilty plea on Hultgren’s behalf.
 
[¶4]      The district 
court conducted a bench trial, which was completed on October 12, 2010.  At the close of the evidence, the judge 
ruled that the State had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.  The judge then imposed a jail sentence of 90 days, along with a fine 
of $500.00.  Both the jail sentence 
and the fine were suspended in favor of 90 days of probation.
 
[¶5]      On November 16, 
2010, the district court entered its written “Judgment and Sentence (Criminal 
Contempt of Court).”  Despite the 
fact that the charge had been amended to allege only three violations, the 
district court’s order indicates that it held Hultgren in contempt on six ground 
for failing to (1) report change of address; (2) fully cooperate with DFS, the 
GAL, and CASA; (3) submit to extractions of bodily substances for testing; (4) 
comply with treatment recommendations from his substance abuse evaluation; (5) 
not use alcoholic beverages; and (6) not be in the presence of alcohol.  Hultgren filed a timely notice of appeal 
to challenge that order.
 
[¶6]      After the parties 
filed their briefs in this appeal, the State of Wyoming filed a “Notice” 
informing this Court that in July of 2011 the district court entered a “Judgment 
and Sentence (Criminal Contempt of Court) Nunc Pro Tunc.”  That order is included in the appellate 
record.1  In the nunc pro tunc order, the district 
court amended its earlier order to reflect that it found that Hultgren violated 
the juvenile court order in three ways (not six):  (1) He failed to comply with DFS 
requests that he submit, every weekend, to extractions of bodily substances for 
testing; (2) he consumed alcohol; and (3) he was in the presence of 
alcohol.
 
DISCUSSION
 
[¶7]      In his brief, 
Hultgren states one issue:
 
Was 
[Hultgren] denied his right to a fair sentencing when the district court 
considered him in contempt of court for violating six provisions of its previous 
order, instead of just the three he was arraigned on, when proclaiming the 
sentence?
 
[¶8]      This Court finds 
that, given the entry of the nunc pro tunc order,2 the basis for Hultgren’s issue in 
this appeal has disappeared.  In the 
nunc pro tunc order, the district court clarified that it held Hultgren in 
contempt based upon the three violations contained in the amended contempt 
charge.  Thus, Hultgren can no 
longer complain that the district court relied upon six violations when it 
imposed sentence.  In sum, given the 
entry of the nunc pro tunc order, Hultgren can no longer maintain his appellate 
issue.  In addition, because 
Hultgren does not take any other issue with the “Judgment and Sentence (Criminal 
Contempt of Court),” this Court finds that said order should be, and hereby is, 
affirmed.
 
FOOTNOTES
 
1Were the nunc pro tunc order not already included in the appellate 
record, this Court could take judicial notice of it, inasmuch as a court may 
“take judicial notice of its own records in the case before it or in a case 
closely related to it.”  State in Interest of C, 638 P.2d 165, 
172, n.10 (Wyo. 1981); Wayt v. State, 
912 P.2d 1106, 1109 (Wyo. 1996).
 
2  With respect to nunc pro 
tunc orders, this Court has written:
 
A nunc pro tunc order is used to correct an inaccuracy in an earlier 
order.  Johnson v. State, 914 P.2d 810, 812 
(Wyo. 1996); Christensen v. State, 
854 P.2d 675, 682 (Wyo. 1993).  A 
district court may not, however, use a nunc pro tunc order to make a substantive 
change in a judgment or order.  See, 
Johnson, 914 P.2d  at 812; Eddy v. First Wyoming Bank, N.A.-Lander, 
713 P.2d 228, 234 (Wyo. 1986).
 
Dolence v. 
State, 2005 WY 
27, ¶ 1, fn.1, 107 P.3d 176, 177 (Wyo. 2005); see also McCormack v. State, Dept. of Family 
Services, 2008 WY 119, 193 P.3d 1147 (Wyo. 2008).  The nunc pro tunc order entered in this 
matter has not been challenged, so that order stands as a valid order of the 
district court.