Title: City of Casper v. Fletcher

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

City of Casper v. Fletcher1996 WY 65916 P.2d 473Case Number: 95-172Decided: 05/14/1996Supreme Court of Wyoming
The CITY OF CASPER,

Petitioner,

 

v.

 

Robert 
FLETCHER,

 Respondent.

 

Appeal from 
the District Court, Natrona County, Dan Spangler, J.

 

Robert J. 
Hand, Jr., Assistant City Attorney, Casper, for petitioner.

 

Wyoming 
Association of Local Government Attorneys by Daniel M. Hesse; and Wyoming 
Association of Municipalities by Kathleen A. Hunt, Amici Curiae on behalf of 
petitioner.

 

Robert 
Fletcher, pro 
se.

 

Before 
GOLDEN, C.J., and THOMAS, MACY, TAYLOR and LEHMAN, JJ.

 

LEHMAN, 
Justice.

 

[¶1]      The question 
raised in this case is whether a person charged with a violation of a city 
ordinance, which provides no jail time for conviction, is entitled to a trial by 
jury. The district court, in reversing respondent's conviction, held that since 
respondent could have been charged under a state statute which does provide for 
incarceration, he should have had a jury trial pursuant to our decision in City 
of Casper v. Cheatham, 739 P.2d 1222 (Wyo. 1987). We conclude that our decision 
in Cheatham does not mandate a jury trial under these circumstances and reverse 
the district court.

 

[¶2]      The City of 
Casper presents, as its primary issue, the following 
statement:

 

Whether a 
jury trial is required for a petty offense that does not allow a potential jail 
sentence, nor result in any collateral consequences upon 
conviction.

 

Respondent, 
Robert Fletcher, appearing pro se, sets out three issues:

 

I. Whether 
Casper municipal court deprived the respondent of the right to a trial by jury, 
as guaranteed to all citizens of the State of Wyoming, by Article 1, Section 9, 
of the Wyoming State Constitution.

II. Whether 
the Casper City Attorney can use the doctrine of prosecutorial discretion (or 
indiscretion) [sic] to deny Wyoming citizens the right to a trial by a jury of 
their peers, as guaranteed by the Wyoming State 
Constitution.

III. Whether 
a city's explicit authority to enforce and enact its own ordinances includes the 
right to deny citizens the rights guaranteed by the United States and Wyoming 
constitutions.

 

BACKGROUND

 

[¶3]      Respondent was 
charged in Casper Municipal Court with violating Casper City Ordinance 9.08.010, 
Assault and Battery. Respondent filed a demand for a jury trial, which was 
denied by the municipal court. After a bench trial, respondent was convicted and 
fined $260.00 and ordered to pay $50.00 to the victim's compensation fund. 

 

[¶4]      Respondent 
appealed to the district court. The district court reversed, concluding that 
respondent should have been given a jury trial, reasoning:

 

[Respondent] 
was found guilty of assault under a city ordinance which does not provide for a 
jail sentence. Juries are not required for "petty" offenses. However, the case 
of City of Casper v. Cheatham, 739 P.2d 1222 (Wyo. 1987), establishes that an 
offense is not necessarily a petty offense when a fine is the only authorized 
punishment. The Cheatham case holds that factors in addition to potential 
punishment shall be considered in determining whether an offense is a petty 
offense. One factor considered by the Supreme Court is that the drunk driving 
charge in the Cheatham case could have been filed either in Municipal Court or 
in County Court where a jury trial was available to the 
Defendant.

 

The same is 
true in this case. The assault charge could have been filed in County Court 
under the state statute. To accept the position of the City would be to say that 
the prosecution can decide whether someone charged with assault in the City 
limits shall receive a jury trial or not. On the other hand, those charged with 
assault outside the City limits are always entitled to a jury trial. The Supreme 
Court did not view this result favorably in the Cheatham 
case.

 

The City of 
Casper then filed a Petition for Review with this court.

 

DISCUSSION

 

[¶5]      We begin our 
analysis with a review of our decision in Cheatham. The defendant in that case 
was charged with driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor in 
violation of a City of Casper ordinance which provided for a maximum penalty of 
a $750.00 fine. We noted that, normally, where a statute provides for a fine 
with no jail time a jury trial is not mandated. See Brenner v. City of Casper, 
723 P.2d 558 (Wyo. 1986). We then noted, however, that a first offense 
conviction of DWUI "advances the defendant to a position where a second 
conviction provides not a potential jail sentence, but a mandatory sentence." 
Based on that, this court held that a defendant charged with DWUI was entitled 
to a jury trial even if it was his first offense and jail time was not an 
option. 739 P.2d  at 1224.

 

[¶6]      Initially, we 
must disagree with the district court's reasoning. The analysis of whether a 
particular statute requires a jury trial must, by necessity, focus on the 
penalty authorized by that statute, not what penalties are permitted under 
another statute. A defendant is only subject to the penalties of the charged 
statute, thus what he could have been charged with is irrelevant since he is not 
subject to sentencing under those statutes. See Lapp v. City of Worland, 612 P.2d 868, 875 (Wyo. 1980) (the right to a jury trial must be tested by the 
punishment authorized by the charged statute). Cheatham requires a jury trial 
for an offense which does not provide for jail time for an initial violation 
only when that conviction results in a mandatory jail term for any subsequent 
convictions.

 

[¶7]      The punishment 
authorized for a conviction under 9.08.010 is found in Casper Ordinance 
1.28.010, subsections (B) and (C)(1), which provide:

 

B. Any 
misdemeanor committed in the city shall be punishable only by a fine of not more 
than seven hundred fifty dollars, to which may be added court costs as set by 
the municipal court, but not to exceed ten dollars for all violations, except as 
otherwise provided.

C. For the 
following specific misdemeanors committed and formally charged by the filing of 
a complaint in the municipal court for the city, the formal charge being filed 
within one year of any prior conviction for the same offense charged, the court 
shall have the power to fine under the authority of subsection B of this 
section, or may order imprisonment 
in the city jail for a period not to exceed six months, or both, to which may be 
added court costs as set by the municipal court, but not to exceed ten dollars 
for all violations, the specific violations, or amendments thereto, 
being:

 

1.                  
Assault and 
battery, in violation of Section 9.08.101[.]

2.                  
 

(Emphasis 
added.) In this case, unlike the situation confronted in Cheatham, multiple 
violations do not subject the offender to mandatory incarceration. The policy 
reasons identified in Cheatham which counseled for jury trials are not present 
in this case. Therefore, the municipal court was correct in denying respondent's 
motion as he was not entitled to a jury trial under these 
circumstances.

 

CONCLUSION

 

[¶8]      Unless multiple 
convictions under a statute result in mandatory incarceration, a jury trial is 
not required where the initial violation will result only in a fine. That not 
being the case for a violation of the City of Casper's assault and battery 
ordinance, the district court is reversed with instructions to reinstate 
respondent's conviction.