Title: Osborn v. Shillinger

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

Osborn v. Shillinger1985 WY 145705 P.2d 1246Case Number: 85-193Decided: 09/23/1985KEVIN WINSTON OSBORN, PLAINTIFF, 

v. 

DUANE SHILLINGER, WARDEN OF THE WYOMING STATE PENITENTIARY, AND A.G. McCLINTOCK, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF WYOMING, RESPONDENTS.

Supreme Court of Wyoming
KEVIN WINSTON OSBORN, 
PLAINTIFF, 

v. 

DUANE SHILLINGER, WARDEN 
OF THE WYOMING STATE PENITENTIARY, AND A.G. McCLINTOCK, THE 
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF WYOMING, RESPONDENTS.

 
 
Order denying motion for 
stay of execution.

 
 
Craig L. Truman, 
Denver, for plaintiff.

John W. 
Renneisen, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., for 
respondents.

ORDER

[¶1.]     This case came on 
before the court upon the Motion for Stay of Execution filed herein on behalf of 
Kevin Winston Osborn on September 20, 1985, and upon the Traverse of Motion for 
Stay of Execution filed herein on behalf of the Respondents on September 20, 
1985, and the court having examined the files and record before the court, and 
being fully advised in the premises, finds that the Motion for Stay of Execution 
should be denied, and it therefore is

[¶2.]     ORDERED that the Motion 
for Stay of Execution filed herein on behalf of Kevin Winston Osborn be, and the 
same hereby is, denied.

See attached 
special concurrence from Justice BROWN and attached dissent from Justice 
ROSE.

BROWN, Justice, specially 
concurring.

[¶3.]     I agree with the 
majority of the court that the "Motion for Stay of Execution" should be denied. 
Petitioner's execution date was set by the district court's order dated May 13, 
1985. Petitioner waited over three months and now makes an eleventh hour appeal 
for a stay of execution.

[¶4.]     Petitioner's pleadings 
to invoke the jurisdiction of this court are the most defective imaginable. It 
appears that petitioner has deliberately flaunted and ignored well-known rules 
and procedures, challenging this court to act on patently defective 
pleadings.

[¶5.]     I join the majority 
knowing that petitioner still has time to present to this court or another court 
a petition for relief that minimally complies with elementary rules and 
procedures.

ROSE, Justice, 
dissenting.

[¶6.]     I dissent - and, in 
dissenting, I make these observations:

[¶7.]     This is the second time 
that the majority of this court have refused to judge in favor of the capital 
defendant. The first was when we upheld the trial court's refusal to permit 
Osborn to withdraw his guilty plea.

[¶8.]     We must remember that 
Mr. Osborn has never been judged by a jury of his peers - a situation which is 
highly unusual in a capital case. He has alleged that he was under the influence 
of drugs during his arraignment when he changed his plea from not guilty to 
guilty, and yet we have refused to hold this or any other condition or grounds 
sufficient to direct that the district court authorize the change of 
plea.

[¶9.]     In the matter at bar, 
Osborn's counsel, for whatever reason, did not file a notice of appeal from a 
final order of the district court, and, because of this failure to follow the 
rules, we are saying that - so far as we are concerned - he must be executed 
this Friday, with the real possibility, because of time restraints, that our 
action will thus foreclose his access to this appellate court system - which 
access would otherwise have been his had his lawyer filed a timely notice of 
appeal.

[¶10.]  What is happening to 
Osborn?

[¶11.]  Here is a man who, without a trial by 
jury, is apparently going to his death on a plea of guilty - which the criminal 
justice system in its discretion has refused to permit him to change - all 
without having had access to the appellate processes, because his attorney did 
not pursue and take advantage of the rules of appellate procedure which were 
available to him. 

[¶12.]  Osborn, no matter how heinous his crime, 
should be extended every benefit and right that the system can provide - he 
should not be rushed to his death in circumstances where the totality of the 
system has in any degree not been made available to him, any more than the 
humanitarian aspects of the system should, for any reason, be made unavailable 
to you and to me.

[¶13.]  The courts of this country have 
repeatedly been admonished that we cannot be too careful when ruling on death 
penalty issues. The reason is that death, in its finality, forecloses the option 
of mistake-making. The United States Supreme Court, in Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 92 S. Ct. 2726, 33 L. Ed. 2d 346, reh. denied 409 U.S. 902, 93 S. Ct. 89, 34 L. Ed. 2d 164 (1972), recognized the unique nature of capital 
punishment.

"The penalty of death 
differs from all other forms of criminal punishment, not in degree but in kind. 
It is unique in its total irrevocability. It is unique in its rejection of 
rehabilitation of the convict as a basic purpose of criminal justice. And it is 
unique, finally, in its absolute renunciation of all that is embodied in our 
concept of humanity." (Mr. Justice Stewart, concurring opinion.) 408 U.S.  at 306, 92 S. Ct.  at 
2760.

This admonition 
was re-emphasized in Gardner v. 
Florida, 430 U.S. 349, 97 S. Ct. 1197, 51 L. Ed. 2d 393 (1977), where the Court observed:

"* * * [D]eath is a 
different kind of punishment from any other which may be imposed in this 
country. * * * From the point of view of the defendant, it is different in both 
its severity and its finality. From the point of view of society, the action of 
the sovereign in taking the life of one of its citizens also differs 
dramatically from any other legitimate state action. It is of vital importance 
to the defendant and to the community that any decision to impose the death 
sentence be, and appear to be, based on reason rather than caprice or emotion." 
430 U.S.  at 356-358, 97 S. Ct.  at 
1204.

[¶14.]  In my earlier dissent in Osborn v. State, Wyo., 672 P.2d 777, 808 
(1983), I said:

"Because there is no 
margin for error in a capital case, the courts must be vigilant in protecting 
the defendant's right to employ all of the safeguards afforded by our criminal 
justice system. In Woodson v. North 
Carolina, 428 U.S. 280, 96 S. Ct. 2978, 49 L. Ed. 2d 944 (1976), the Court said:

"`* * * Death, in its 
finality, differs more from life imprisonment than a 100-year prison term 
differs from one of only a year or two. Because of that qualitative difference, 
there is a corresponding difference in the need for reliability in the 
determination that death is the appropriate punishment in a specific case.' 428 U.S.  at 305, 96 S. Ct.  at 
2991."

[¶15.]  Justice Brown, in his specially 
concurring opinion, suggests that there is yet time for Osborn to take such 
steps as will save him from death on Friday, September 27, 1985. I hope he is 
right, and I trust that those who represent him will do all that is possible 
under the law to see that every conceivable aspect of the system is made 
available to him. Not only do I want this for Osborn - I so desperately want it 
for all of us.