Title: RICHARD DEAN YOUNGBERG v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

RICHARD DEAN YOUNGBERG v. THE STATE OF WYOMING2012 WY 119284 P.3d 820Case Number: S-11-0202Decided: 09/10/2012
APRIL TERM, A.D. 2012 

 
RICHARD 
DEAN YOUNGBERG,Appellant(Defendant),v.THE STATE OF 
WYOMING,Appellee(Plaintiff).
 
Appeal from the 
District Court of Albany County
The Honorable Jeffrey 
A. Donnell, Judge
 
Representing 
Appellant:
Elisabeth M. W. 
Trefonas, Assistant Public Defender, Jackson, Wyoming.
 
Representing 
Appellee:
Gregory A. Phillips, 
Wyoming Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; D. 
Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Stewart M. Young, Faculty 
Director, Joshua B. Taylor, Student Director, Kyle A. Ridgeway, Student Intern, 
Prosecution Assistance Program.
 
Before KITE, 
C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, VOIGT, and BURKE, JJ.
 
VOIGT, 
Justice.
 
[¶1]      
The appellant, Richard Dean Youngberg, was convicted of one count of 
check fraud and was sentenced to seven to ten years of 
incarceration.  On appeal, the appellant claims that the 
prosecutor committed misconduct when he told the jury in closing argument that 
the appellant was informed that there were problems with his checking account on 
March 17, 2010.  The appellant argues that the prosecutor’s 
statement was not consistent with the evidence presented at trial and, as a 
result, he is entitled to a new trial.  We affirm the 
appellant’s conviction. 
 
ISSUE
 
Did plain 
error occur when the prosecutor referred to the officer’s testimony regarding 
when the appellant was notified of problems with his checking 
account?
 
FACTS
 
[¶2]      
On April 7, 2010, Officer Johnson with the Laramie Police Department 
was dispatched to the True Value hardware store in Laramie regarding a report of 
check fraud.  Officer Johnson learned that the appellant had 
issued three separate checks to the business, and all three had been returned by 
the bank because they were written on a closed account.  
Officer Johnson began an investigation and learned that the appellant was 
the focus of two other investigations for check fraud regarding the same 
checking account that were being conducted by the Laramie Police 
Department.  On April 13, 2010, Officer Johnson arrested the 
appellant for check fraud and, during a search incident to arrest, found the 
appellant’s checkbook in the back pocket of his pants.  The 
checkbook contained carbon copies of the checks written on the 
account.  Officer Johnson determined that the appellant had 
written 20 checks to businesses in Albany County totaling $2,843 and one check 
to the NAPA Auto Parts store in Cheyenne for $362.49.
 
STANDARD OF 
REVIEW
 
[¶3]      
At trial, defense counsel did not object to the prosecutor’s comments and 
argument regarding when the appellant was first notified that his checking 
account was closed.  Because it is being raised for the first 
time on appeal, we review for plain error.  Lawson v. 
State, 2010 WY 145, ¶ 48, 
242 P.3d 993, 1008 (Wyo. 2010).  “In order to 
establish plain error, [the appellant] must show:  1) the 
alleged error clearly appears in the record; 2) the error transgressed an 
unequivocal rule of law in a clear and obvious way; and 3) the error adversely 
affected [the appellant’s] substantial right resulting in material prejudice to 
him.”  Id.  
 
DISCUSSION
 
[¶4]      
At trial, the appellant’s defense to the charges against him was that he 
did not know that his checking account had been closed when he wrote the 21 
checks to various businesses.  The appellant claims that the 
prosecutor committed misconduct when he told the jury in closing argument that 
the appellant had been notified that there were problems with his checking 
account on March 17, 2010, and that he continued to write checks on the account 
until April 10, 2010.  He claims that the evidence 
demonstrated that he did not know there were any problems with his checking 
account until the NAPA Auto Parts store notified him that his check written on 
April 10, 2010, had been denied.  He argues that the 
prosecutor’s statements and argument were inconsistent with the evidence that 
was presented at trial and caused material prejudice to the appellant’s 
case.  
 
[¶5]      
We find that the appellant has failed to demonstrate even the first part 
of the plain error standard of review--that the alleged error clearly appears in 
the record.  The appellant claims that the prosecutor 
continually misrepresented that the NAPA Auto Parts store informed him that 
there was a problem with his checking account on March 17, 2010, when the 
evidence shows that the appellant did not write a check to the NAPA Auto Parts 
store until April 10, 2010.  However, the record shows that 
the appellant wrote checks on the closed account to the NAPA Auto Parts store in 
Cheyenne and to the NAPA Auto Parts store in 
Laramie.  The record is very clear, and there is 
no dispute, that the check was written to the Cheyenne store on April 10, 
2010.  The evidence regarding when the check was written to 
the Laramie store is not so clear.  What is clear is that 
Officer Johnson testified, without objection, that an employee of the NAPA Store 
in Laramie notified the appellant on March 17, 2010, that the 
check he wrote to that store was returned.
 
[¶6]      
The appellant’s entire argument is based upon the notion that it was the 
NAPA Auto Parts store in Cheyenne that notified the appellant that 
his check had been returned.  In fact, the appellant fails to 
recognize in his brief on appeal that he even wrote a check to the NAPA Auto 
Parts store in Laramie, despite the fact that at trial the appellant 
testified:
 
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: 
 Did you ever -- were you ever confronted about a check that 
didn’t clear?
 
[APPELLANT]:  
Yes, I was one time.
 
Q.    
Where was that at?
 
A.    
That was a NAPA here in Laramie.
 
Q.    
Okay.  And what happened?
 
A.    
I went to return some items because one of my uncles from Saratoga said 
that he had those same tools; that he would give them to me, so I went to return 
those items at NAPA, and somebody from NAPA confronted me and said that they had 
called my bank, and my account was not good.
 
Thus, the evidence 
presented at trial was that, at some point in time, the appellant wrote a check 
to the NAPA Auto Parts store in Laramie, and he was notified by an 
employee of that store on March 17, 2010, that the check had been 
returned.  The appellant then wrote a check on April 10, 2010, 
to the NAPA Auto Parts store in Cheyenne that was also 
returned.  Since the prosecutor’s closing argument was 
consistent with the evidence presented at trial, we find that the appellant has 
failed to demonstrate the alleged error clearly appears in the 
record.
 
[¶7]      
Further, the appellant has failed to show that there was a violation of a 
clear and unequivocal rule of law.  When reviewing whether a 
prosecutor has committed misconduct, we must evaluate “the comment claimed to be 
improper in the context of the entire closing argument.”  
Harper v. State, 970 P.2d 400, 403 (Wyo. 
1998).  While counsel is allowed latitude in presenting 
closing argument, it must be “limited to the evidence presented in the 
courtroom.”  Montoya v. State, 971 P.2d 134, 136-37 (Wyo. 1998).  Here, the prosecutor limited his 
argument to the evidence that was presented at trial.  He 
argued that the appellant became aware of problems with his checking account on 
March 17, 2010, which was consistent with Officer Johnson’s 
testimony.  Because this argument was consistent with the 
evidence presented at trial, the appellant has failed to demonstrate there was a 
violation of a clear and unequivocal rule of law.1
 
CONCLUSION
 
[¶8]      
Plain error did not occur when the prosecutor argued in his closing 
statement that the appellant was informed on March 17, 2010, of problems with 
his checking account, and despite that information, continued to write checks on 
the account.  This argument was consistent with the facts 
presented at the trial and, therefore, does not amount to prosecutorial 
misconduct.  We affirm the appellant’s conviction.
 
FOOTNOTES
1Unfortunately for 
the appellant, the only facts that this Court has found not to be consistent 
with the evidence presented at trial are the facts as they have been conveyed to 
this Court in the appellant’s brief.