Title: POPE v. STATE

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

POPE v. STATE 2002 WY 938 P.3d 1069Case Number: 00-136Decided: 01/25/2002

October Term, A.D. 2001

 

 

JASON 
ANTHONY POPE,                         

 Appellant(Defendant),

 

v.

 

THE 
STATE OF WYOMING, 

Appellee(Plaintiff).

 

 

Appeal 
from the District Court of Sheridan County:

The 
Honorable John C. Brackley, Judge

 

Representing 
Appellant:

Sylvia 
Lee Hackl, State Public Defender; and Donna D. Domonkos, Appellate 
Counsel.

 Representing 
Appellee:

Gay 
Woodhouse, Attorney General; Paul S. Rehurek, Deputy Attorney General; D. 
Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and T. Alan Elrod, Assistant 
Attorney General.

 

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

  

LEHMAN, 
Chief Justice. 

[¶1]      Appellant 
Jason Pope appeals from the Judgment and Sentence entered after he was convicted 
by a Sheridan County jury of felony interference with a police officer, in 
violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-5-204(b) (LexisNexis 2001).1   Pope claims that his 
constitutional right not to be placed twice in jeopardy for the same offense was 
violated when he was tried and convicted of the felony charge after he had 
already been convicted of misdemeanor inter­ference with a peace officer, in 
violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-5-204(a) (LexisNexis 2001).2  We conclude that he was not subjected to 
double jeopardy because his crimes involved different actions and different 
victims.  

 

[¶2]      
Affirmed.

 

 

ISSUE

 

[¶3]      Pope presents a 
single issue on appeal:

 

Whether 
Pope was denied his constitutional right under the United States Constitution, 
Fifth Amendment, and the Wyoming Constitution, art. 1 § 11, to be free from 
being placed twice in jeopardy.

 

 

FACTS

 

[¶4]      The facts which 
support the jury's verdict are as follows:  
On July 30, 1999, Officer John King of the Sheridan Police Department was 
dispatched to a domestic disturbance.  
When he arrived at the scene, he heard screaming and a loud boom that 
shook the windows of the house.   
He immediately reported to dispatch that the dispute had become 
physical.  

 

[¶5]      Officer King 
entered the house and heard screaming coming from two different 
loca­tions.  He checked the main 
floor and discovered some small children crying in a bedroom.  Officer King then proceeded up the 
stairs, where he witnessed Pope sitting on top of his wife.  As the officer approached, Pope turned 
toward him in an aggressive manner.  
Officer King tried to force Pope to the ground but was not successful, 
and Pope pulled away from him.  Pope 
then hit Officer King in the face with his closed fist, knocking off and 
breaking the officer's glasses.  

 

[¶6]      Officer King told 
Pope that he was under arrest and began to handcuff him.  Pope did not cooperate, and the two men 
scuffled.  The officer sprayed Pope 
with pepper spray, but it did not affect him.  Sheridan Police Officer Phillips arrived 
while Pope and Officer King were still strug­gling.  The two officers handcuffed Pope and 
began leading him out of the room.  
They informed Pope that he was under arrest for hitting Officer 
King.  

 

[¶7]      Pope started 
jumping as Officers King and Phillips attempted to escort him down the 
stairs.  Officer Lamb of the 
Sheridan Police Department arrived at the scene and began climbing the stairs to 
assist the other officers; however, he re­alized that he was in a bad 
posi­tion, so he turned around to descend the stairs.  At that point, Pope jumped down the 
stairs and kicked Officer Lamb, knocking him against the wall.  Pope then tried to flee by going around 
Officer Lamb, but the officer grabbed him, and they began to struggle.  Pope pushed Officer Lamb toward the 
stair railing and stated that the officer was going over the railing.  Officer Lamb eventually regained control 
of Pope.   

 

[¶8]      Officer Lamb and 
Officer King directed Pope to the patrol car, where they attempted to perform a 
pat-down search.  Pope tried to kick 
the officers, and they wrestled him to the ground, sprayed him with pepper 
spray, and restrained his legs.  
Pope was then transported to jail.  
Officer Lamb suffered a head wound and an injury to his elbow in the 
altercation with Pope.  The officer 
was, consequently, taken to the emergency room for treatment.  

 

[¶9]      Pope was issued 
two citations:  one for domestic 
battery and the other for misde­meanor interference with a peace 
officer.  On August 2, 1999, Pope 
was brought before the Sheridan County Court for his initial appearance on the 
two citations.  In addition, Pope 
was served with a felony information, charging him with felony interference with 
a peace officer.  The felony 
information stated that the charge pertained to Pope's actions which resulted in 
Officer Lamb's injuries.  

 

[¶10]   Pope waived his preliminary hearing 
on the felony charge and pled guilty to the two misdemeanor charges.  The State presented the factual basis 
for Pope's guilty pleas, recounting the entire con­frontation among Pope and 
the three officers.  The State did 
not indicate, in its factual basis, that the misdemeanor interference charge 
pertained particu­larly to the incident involving Officer King.  Nevertheless, Pope agreed that the 
factual basis was substantially correct, and the trial court accepted his guilty 
pleas.  The parties then began 
dis­cussing sentencing issues.  
During that discussion, the prose­cutor made a statement which 
indicated that the misdemeanor charge pertained to Pope's ac­tions against 
Officer King and the felony charge related to Pope's actions against Officer 
Lamb.  Neither Pope nor his 
attor­ney disputed the statement.  

 

[¶11]   On September 9, 1999, Pope filed a 
motion and a supporting memorandum seeking dismissal of the felony interference 
charge on the grounds that his constitutional right to be free from being placed 
twice in jeopardy for the same offense was violated when the State prosecuted 
him for felony interference after he had already been convicted of misdemeanor 
interference.  The trial court 
denied Pope's motion to dismiss and also denied a subsequent motion to 
reconsider its ruling on the double jeopardy issue.  

 

[¶12]   The trial court held a jury trial 
on the felony charge on December 1 and 2, 1999.  The State requested permission from the 
trial court to cross-examine Pope with evidence showing that he had agreed with 
the State's factual basis for the misde­meanor charge.  The trial court granted the State's 
request, with certain conditions; however, the State did not present the 
evidence at the trial.  The jury 
found Pope guilty of the felony charge, and the trial court sub­sequently 
entered a Judg­ment and Sentence against Pope.  He filed a timely notice of appeal to 
this court.  

 

 

DISCUSSION

 

[¶13]   Pope claims that his constitutional 
right to be free from being placed twice in jeop­ardy for the same offense 
was violated when he was prosecuted for felony interference with a peace officer 
after he had already been convicted of misdemeanor interference with a peace 
officer.  In support of his 
contention, Pope argues that the misdemeanor charge pertained to Pope's action 
against all three officers at the scene because neither the citation nor the 
State's factual basis for the misdemeanor charge specified any particular 
officer as being the victim of that crime.  
Pope contends, therefore, that he could not later be prosecuted 
separately for his actions against Officer Lamb.  Pope argues vehemently that the State's 
request to cross-examine him, at the trial on the felony charge, about the fact 
that he agreed with the State's factual basis for the misdemeanor charge is 
strong evidence that he was subjected to double jeopardy in this case.  The State contends that Pope was not 
subjected to double jeopardy be­cause the misdemeanor charge pertained to 
Pope's altercation with Officer King and the fel­ony charge related to 
Pope's actions against Officer Lamb.  
We agree with the State.  

 

[¶14]   The Wyoming Supreme Court reviews 
claims that a constitutional right has been violated by applying our de novo standard of review.  Burdine v. State, 974 P.2d 927, 929 
(Wyo. 1999).  The Fifth Amendment to 
the United States Constitution and art. 1, § 11 of the Wyoming Constitution 
guarantee that a person will not be placed twice in jeopardy for the same 
offense.  The double jeopardy 
provisions of the Wyoming and United States constitu­tions "have the same 
meaning and are coextensive in application."  Vigil v. State, 563 P.2d 1344, 1350 
(Wyo. 1977).  See also Amrein v. State, 836 P.2d 862, 864 (Wyo. 
1992).  The double jeopardy 
constitutional guarantee provides three protections to persons accused of 
crimes:  

 

It 
protects the accused who has been acquitted against a second prosecution for the 
same offense; it protects the accused who has been convicted against a second 
prosecution for the same offense; and it protects the accused against multiple 
punish­ments for the same offense. 

 

Amrein, 
836 P.2d  
at 864.  See also Frenzel v. State, 938 P.2d 867, 868 
(Wyo.), cert. denied 522 U.S. 959, 
118 S. Ct. 388, 139 L. Ed. 2d 303 (1997) ; Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 165, 97 S. Ct. 2221, 2225, 53 L. Ed. 2d 187 (1977).  
We are concerned with the second protection in this case. 

 

[¶15]   The statutory elements test 
articulated in the famous United States Supreme Court case of Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304, 52 S. Ct. 180, 182, 76 L. Ed. 306 (1932), is used by this court to 
analyze claims that a person has been prosecuted twice for the same 
offense.   See e.g., Longstreth v. State, 890 P.2d 551, 553 
(Wyo. 1995).  The Blockburger test is articulated as follows: 

 

The 
applicable rule is that where the same act or transac­tion constitutes a 
violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to 
determine whether there are two of­fenses or only one, is whether each 
provision requires proof of an addi­tional fact which the other does 
not.

 

Blockburger, 
284 U.S. 
at 304, 52 S. Ct.  at 182.  See 
also Longstreth, 890 P.2d  at 
553.  Under the Blockburger test, a person generally may 
not be prosecuted for a greater offense after he has already been convicted of a 
lesser-included offense based upon the same conduct. Brown, 432 U.S.  at 168, 97 S. Ct.  at 
2226-27.  Recently this court 
clarified that misdemeanor interference with a peace officer is a 
lesser-included offense of the greater charge of felony interference with a 
peace officer.  Mueller v. 
State, 2001 WY 134, ¶14, 36 P.3d 1151, ¶14 (Wyo. 
2001).

 

[¶16]   Nevertheless, the Blockburger analysis does not apply when 
the two charges involve different victims and different actions.  "As a general proposition, with few 
exceptions, in crimes against the person, when contrasted with crimes against 
property, there are as many offenses as individuals affected."  Vigil, 563 P.2d  at 1352.  See also Taylor v. State, 7 P.3d 15, 20 (Wyo. 
2000); Amrein, 836 P.2d  at 864.  Thus, there is no issue of double 
jeopardy when the defendant committed "two separate and distinct acts of 
violence against two sepa­rate and distinct human beings."  Starr v. State, 821 P.2d 1299, 1301 
(Wyo. 1991) (per curiam).   
See also Geiser v. State, 
920 P.2d 1243, 1244 (Wyo. 1996).    

 

[¶17]   A review of the court record in 
this case shows that the misdemeanor charge clearly related to Pope's actions 
against Officer King and the felony charge clearly concerned Pope's actions 
against Officer Lamb.  When Officers 
King and Phillips initially placed Pope under arrest, they informed him that he 
was being arrested for his actions against Officer King.  Officer Lamb was not even involved with 
the situation at that point, and Pope's actions which resulted in the injury to 
Officer Lamb occurred subse­quent to the initial arrest.  The State issued cita­tions to Pope 
for misdemeanor interference with a peace officer and domestic battery.  Pope pled guilty to both misdemeanor 
charges.  

 

[¶18]   Pope was served with a separate 
felony information, charging him with felony interfer­ence with a peace 
officer for injuring Officer Lamb.  
While the factual basis provided by the State to support Pope's guilty 
plea on the misdemeanor charge did include the facts of the entire altercation 
among Pope and the three officers, the State did not offer any details about the 
injuries Officer Lamb received in the altercation with Pope.  Pope agreed with the State's factual 
basis on the misdemeanor charge, and he did not contradict the State's 
subse­quent statement that the misdemeanor charge pertained to the 
altercation with Officer King and the felony charge related to Pope's actions 
which re­sulted in the injuries to Officer Lamb.  Moreover, the State ultimately did not 
cross-examine Pope about the fact that he agreed with the State's factual basis 
for the mis­demeanor charge.  
Consequently, that argu­ment is irrelevant to our analysis.  

 

[¶19]   Under the facts of this case, it is 
clear that the charges involved two distinct actions against two different 
victims.  Pope could be prosecuted 
for each of these incidents without violating his constitutional right to be 
free from being placed twice in jeopardy.  
The district court did not err by denying his motion to 
dismiss.

 

[¶20]   Affirmed.  

FOOTNOTES

1Section 6-5-204(b) 
states:

 

(b)  A person who intentionally and knowingly 
causes or attempts to cause bodily injury to a peace officer engaged in the 
lawful performance of his official duties is guilty of a felony punishable by 
imprisonment for not more than ten (10) years. 

 

2Section 6-5-204(a) 
states:

 

(a) A person commits a misdemeanor 
punishable by imprisonment for not more than one (1) year, a fine of not more 
than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), or both, if he knowingly obstructs, 
impedes or interferes with or resists arrest by a peace officer while engaged in 
the lawful performance of his official duties.