### IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING

20 20 WY 118

APRIL TERM, A.D. 20 20

September 10, 2020

CLINTON RAY WOODS,

Appellant (Defendant),

v.

THE STATE OF WYOMING,

Appellee (Plaintiff). S

- 19

- 0279

Appeal from the District Court of Laram ie County
The H onor ab le Steven K. Sharpe , Judge

Representing Appellant: Clinton Ray Woods, p ro s e

.

Rep re senting Appellee: Bridget Hill, Wyoming Attorney General; Jenny L. Craig , Deputy Attorney General; Joshua C. Eames , S en ior Assistant Attorney Genera l

.

Before DAVI S, C .J., and F OX , KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, and GRAY, JJ.

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in Pacific Reporter Third. Readers are requested to notify the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Building, Cheyenne, Wyomi ng 8 2002, of a n y typographical or other formal errors so that correction may be made before final publication in the permanent volume.1 GRAY , Justice.

[¶1] Clinton Ray Woods was convicted of three counts of Sexual Abuse of a Minor in
the Second Degree , in vio lati on of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6

- 2

- 315(a)(i) , and one count of Sexual Abuse of a Minor in the Third Degree , in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6

- 2

- 316(a)(i )

. See Woods v. Sta te , 2017 WY 111, ¶ 1, 401 P.3d 962, 965 (Wyo. 2017)

. 1

[¶2] Mr . Woods file d a pro se “Pet ition for Exoneration Based on Factual Innocence” under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § § 7

- 12

- 401 through

- 407

. 2 The district court dismissed the
pet ition without prejudice

. It found Mr. Woods was “merely relitigating facts, issues or

ev idence presented in previous pr oceedings or presenting issues that a ppear fri volous or speculative on their face . . .” in contravention of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7

- 12

- 404(b)

. It also found Mr. Woods did not produce any “newly discovered e vid ence.”

[¶3] Mr. Woods appeals the d istrict court’s order of dismissal. After examining the briefs, appellate record, and cont rolling law, this Court unanimously ag reed to an abbreviated opinion af firming the dis trict court’s order pursuant to W.R.A.P. 9.06. 3 See
Hardman v. State , 2018 WY 24, ¶ 2, 413 P. 3d 116, 117 (Wyo. 2018).

[¶4] Mr. Woods raises a number of issues on appeal ; however , the threshold question is whether he has properly invoked this Court ’s jurisdiction

. We conclude he did not. “The existence of jurisdiction is a question of law” which we r eview de novo. Matter of Est ate of Inman

, 2016 WY 101, ¶ 9, 382 P.3d 67, 69 (Wyo . 2016) (citi ng Brown v. City of Casper , 2011 WY 35, ¶ 8, 248 P.3d 113 6, 1139 (Wyo. 2 011)).

[¶5] W e recently held that “the dismissal of a Factual Innocence Act pe tition without prejudice following an initial determination of statutory noncompliance is not a final judgment which can be appealed.” Uden v. State

, 2020 W Y 109 , ¶ 1 6

, 470 P.3d 560

, 563

– 64 (Wyo. 2020) ; s ee also W.R.A. P. 1.0 5 (defining an appealable orde r )

. In Uden

,

1 Mr. Woods appealed his conviction and this Court affirmed. Woods

, 4 0 1 P.3d 962

. He then f i led a petition f or post

- convic tion relief, whi c h the district court denied. Mr. Woods petitioned this Court to
review the district court’s deni al of the post

- conviction relie f petition, and we declined to review that
decision.

2 “ The legislature pass ed the Factual Inno cence Act in 201 8 to allow a p ers on convicted of a felony offense to petition the court for exoneration if the person c an establish t hat h e is factually innocent of the convicted crime(s). ” Parkhurst v. State , 2019 WY 63, ¶ 10, 443 P.3d 8 3 4, 836

– 37 (Wyo. 2019)

. 3 (a) The supreme cour t by unanimous vote may, sua sponte, enter an abbreviated opinion affirming o r reversing the judg ment o r ord er of the
district court for the reason that it is clear that affirmance or reversal is required be ca u se: (1) the issu es are clearly controlled by s ettled Wyoming law or
federal law binding upon the states [.]
W.R.A. P. 9.06(a) (1).2 t he district court conducted a n initial review of Mr. Uden’s Factual Innocence Act

p etition under Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 7

- 12

- 403(b), (c) and 404(b) , found it failed to comply with the statute, and dismi ssed the petiti on

. W e held that the dismi s sal was without prejudice and that therefore this Court lack ed jurisdiction over Mr. Uden ’ s appeal

. Uden

, ¶

¶ 1 3

– 1 6

, 470 P.3d at 562

– 64

.

[¶6] Our deci sion in Uden controls here

. T he distric t court performed an initial re view
of Mr. Woods’ s petition and deter m ined it was statuto rily noncompliant before
dismi ssing it without prejudice. “Our jurisdiction ‘is limited to appeals from final appealable orders.’ ” Uden , ¶ 1 3, 470 P.3d at 56 2 ( quoting Pa inter v. McGill ex. rel . Wyo. Bd. of Med. , 2019 WY 108, ¶ 10, 4 5 0 P.3d 1243, 1245 (Wyo. 2019) (quoting In man , ¶ 9,
382 P.3d at 69 ))

.

An “appealable order” is “[a]n order affect ing a substantial right in an a ction, when such order, in effect, determines the action and prevents a judgment[.]” W.R.A.P. 1.05(a); see

a l

so Escobedo v. Sta te , 601 P.2d 1028, 1029 (Wyo. 1979); In re Est. of Hibsman , 2012 WY 139, ¶ 17, 287 P.3d 757, 761 (Wyo. 2012) (“The more rigorous requirement of W.R.A.P.

1.05

. . . is that the order affects a ‘substantial right.’ ”); Inman
v. Williams , 20 0 8 WY 81, ¶¶ 11 , 17

– 18, 187 P.3d 868, 875, 876 (W yo. 2008) (concluding the trial court ’ s order was not appealable be cause it did not affect a subst antial right). “To be final, the order must determine all liabilities of all parties and leave nothing for f u tu re considera tion .” Est. of McLe an ex rel. Hal l v. Benson , 2003 WY 78, ¶ 8, 71 P.3d 750, 753 (Wyo. 2003); see als o Lower v. Peabody Powder River Services, LLC , 2020 WY 33, ¶¶ 11

– 12, 459 P.3d 443, 446

– 47 (Wyo. 2020) (the order “must affect a substantial r ig ht,
determin e th e merits of the controversy, a nd resolve all outstanding issues”); Painter , ¶ 10, 450 P.3d at 124 6 (same).

Uden

, ¶ 14

, 470 P.3d at 563

.

[¶7] The dismissal of Mr. Woods’s Factual Innocence Act p etition following initial review under Wyo. Sta t. Ann. § 7

- 12

- 4 04(b) is not a final appealabl e order. We lac k jurisdiction over his appeal. W.R.A.P. 1.05 ; Uden

, ¶ ¶ 1 6, 18

, 470 P.3d at 563

– 64

. 4

4 As we n oted in Uden

, i f Mr. Woods “ could credibly document the existence of newly discovered
evidence that establishes a bo na fide issue of hi s factual innocence, he would be free to file a petition that satisfied all the Act’s requirements. Anythin g short of that , however, woul d again be subject to dismissal following the court’s initial review. ” Uden

, ¶ 1 7

, 470 P.3d at 564

. Further

, “ a p etitioner who can support
a cl aim that the district court erred by dismissing his petition following initia l review under Wyo. Stat.3 [¶8] D ismissed.

An n. § § 7

- 12

- 403(b), (c) and 404(b) may apply to this Court for a writ of review within 15 days after

en try of the dismissa l order. See W.R.A.P. 13.02.” Uden

, ¶ 1 6

, 470 P.3d at 564 n.4

.