Title: ABDULLAH KRU AMIN V. THE STATE OF WYOMING

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

ABDULLAH KRU AMIN V. THE STATE OF WYOMING2006 WY 84138 P.3d 1143Case Number: 05-259Decided: 07/18/2006
APRIL TERM, A.D. 2006

 
 
ABDULLAH 
KRU AMIN,

 
 
Appellant

(Defendant),

 
 
v.

 
 
THE STATE OFWYOMING,

 
 
Appellee

(Plaintiff).

 
 

Appeal 
from the DistrictCourtofCarbonCounty

The 
Honorable Wade E. Waldrip, Judge

 
 
Representing 
Appellant:

Abdullah 
Kru Amin, Pro Se.

 
 

Representing 
Appellee:

Patrick 
J. Crank, Wyoming Attorney General; Paul S. Rehurek, Deputy Attorney General; D. 
Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and James Michael Causey, 
Assistant Attorney General.

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

 
 
*Chief 
Justice at time of expedited conference.

 
 

HILL, 
Justice.

 
 
[¶1]      Appellant, 
Abdullah Kru Amin (Amin), seeks review of the district court's order denying his 
motion which he denominated "Motion for Illegal Sentence Rule 35(a)."  The district court also denied Amin's 
motions to proceed in forma pauperis and for appointment of counsel.  Amin asks that we appoint an attorney to 
represent him in this appeal.  We 
will affirm the order of the district court and we decline to appoint counsel 
for Amin in these proceedings.

 
 
ISSUES

 
 
[¶2]      Amin's brief is 
not in the form required by W.R.A.P. 7.01.  
However, we discern from his brief the following 
issues:

 
 
1.  Is 
Amin under an illegal sentence?

 
 
2.  Do 
his sentences constitute a violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Unites 
States Constitution and/or the Wyoming Constitution?

 
 
3.  Is 
the habitual criminal statute unconstitutional?

 
 
4.  Has 
Amin been denied due process of law?

 
 
5.  Do 
the sentences imposed on Amin constitute cruel and unusual 
punishment?

 
 
            
Amin also asks this Court to appoint counsel for him in this 
appeal.

 
 
The 
State articulates the issue in this terse statement:  "Did the district court err in denying 
[Amin's] motions?"

 
 
FACTS 
AND PROCEEDINGS

 
 
[¶3]      In 1990 Amin was 
convicted of kidnapping and aggravated assault.  These crimes arose out of an incident at 
the Wyoming State Penitentiary wherein he and another inmate attacked 
penitentiary employees and held them as hostages.  Amin was also found by the jury to be an 
habitual criminal.  Amin v. State, 811 P.2d 255 (Wyo. 1991); also see Amin v. State, 695 P.2d 1021 (Wyo. 1985); and Amin v. State, 774 P.2d 597 (Wyo. 1989).  Amin was sentenced to two concurrent 
life sentences for the crimes committed while in the penitentiary, and those 
sentences were made to be served consecutive to other sentences already imposed 
in the older cases.

 
 
[¶4]      On September 12, 
2005, Amin filed a "Motion for Illegal Sentence Rule 35(a)" in the district 
court .  By order entered on October 
14, 2005, the district court denied Amin's motions.  Amin filed what we treated as a notice 
of appeal on October 28, 2005.  
Amin's brief was filed in this Court on November 16, 2005.  The State's brief was filed on January 
27, 2006.  This matter was placed on 
the expedited docket and we took it under advisement on April 4, 
2006.

 
 
DISCUSSION

 
 
[¶5]      What Amin seeks 
to do in these proceedings is to generally challenge his convictions and 
sentences that were affirmed in Amin, 
811 P.2d 255.  We conclude that the 
claims raised in the present appeal are barred by the doctrine of res 
judicata.  See Lacey v. State, 2003 WY 148, 
¶¶ 7-14, 79 P.3d 493, 495-96 (Wyo. 2003).  Amin has failed to provide any cogent 
argument or pertinent authority for the proposition that we should appoint 
counsel for him for this appeal and we decline to do so.

 
 
[¶6]      Finally, we 
determine that Amin has exhausted all of his state remedies with respect to the 
convictions at issue in this matter.  
See Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 7-14-101 through  7-14-108 (LexisNexis 2005).  We authorize the district court to 
decline to permit the filing of any further papers from Amin that relate to 
these convictions, unless Amin has first obtained the consent of the district 
court for such a filing.  
Furthermore, we authorize the clerk of this Court to decline to file any 
papers submitted by Amin that relate to these matters without having first 
obtained the consent of the Court for such a filing.

 
 
CONCLUSION

[¶7]      The order of the 
district court is affirmed in all respects.  Amin is considered by this Court to have 
exhausted his state remedies with respect to the matters at issue in this 
appeal.  Amin is prohibited from 
making any further filings with respect to these matters in either the district 
court or this Court, except under the circumstances outlined 
above.