Title: MICHAEL J. DEE V. THE STATE OF WYOMING

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

MICHAEL J. DEE V. THE STATE OF WYOMING2008 WY 17177 P.3d 218Case Number: S-07-0185Decided: 02/13/2008
OCTOBER TERM, A.D. 2007

 
 
MICHAEL 
J. DEE,Appellant(Plaintiff),v.THE STATE OFWYOMING,Appellee(Defendant).

 
 
Appeal 
from the DistrictCourtofLaramieCounty

 
 

Representing 
Appellant:

Michael 
J. Dee, Pro se

 
 

Representing 
Appellee:

Bruce A. 
Salzburg, Wyoming Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, 
Deputy Attorney General

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

 
 

GOLDEN, 
Justice. 

 
 
[¶1]      Appellant Michael 
J. Dee appeals from the district court's order dismissing his declaratory 
judgment action.  Dee presents no argument that the district court's 
specific ruling was incorrect.  The 
district court's order is therefore summarily affirmed.

 

[¶2]      The essential 
facts in this case are not in dispute.  
Dee was convicted in 1982 of possessing 
and cultivating marijuana.  The 
record does not reflect that Dee appealed his 
1982 conviction.  In January 2007, 
Dee filed a complaint for declaratory 
relief.  In his complaint, 
Dee did not ask the district court to overturn 
his 1982 conviction.  Instead, he 
asked the district court to declare the laws upon which he was convicted, Wyo. 
Stat. Ann. § 35-7-1031(c) and § 35-7-1040 (LexisNexis 2007), as well as Wyo. 
Stat. Ann. § 35-7-1039 (LexisNexis 2007),1 unconstitutional.  Dee 
alleged the laws violated his fundamental right to possess, use and grow 
marijuana and contravened the tenets of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the 
United States Constitution.  After a 
hearing on May 2, 2007, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of 
the State.  The district court found 
the challenged statutes constitutional and found no justiciable 
controversy.  

 
 
[¶3]      Instead of 
appealing the district court's summary judgment ruling, Dee commenced the present declaratory judgment action on 
May 15, 2007, raising the same constitutional claims.  In his complaint, Dee also asked the district court to overturn his 1982 
criminal conviction.  The State 
countered with a motion to dismiss pursuant to W.R.Cr.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to 
state a claim upon which relief could be granted.  Specifically, the State asserted that 
Dee's claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata because they were 
raised and decided against Dee in the prior 
declaratory judgment action.  The 
district court agreed and dismissed Dee's 
complaint with prejudice. This appeal followed.

 
 
[¶4]      On appeal, 
Dee focuses his attention exclusively on the 
constitutionality of the marijuana statutes, reasserting the same claims raised 
in the underlying declaratory judgment action.  As already noted, the district court 
dismissed those claims on res judicata grounds, and Dee has not presented any legal argument directly 
challenging the district court's determination.  That failure is fatal to Dee's appeal.  
Additionally, as previously noted, Dee 
did not appeal his 1982 conviction in which he could have asked that it be 
overturned.  In this appeal he 
presents no legal argument to support that untimely request now.  Consequently, his conviction is res 
judicata as well.  For these reasons 
we summarily affirm the district court's order dismissing Dee's complaint.

 
 
FOOTNOTES

 
 

1Section 
35-7-1031(c) makes it unlawful for any person to knowingly and intentionally 
possess marijuana, § 35-7-1039 makes it unlawful for a person to use marijuana, 
and § 35-7-1040 makes it illegal for any person to grow 
marijuana.