The State presented evidence in that portion of the trial which showed that Appellant had been previously convicted in Wyoming, Nebraska, and South Dakota. Appellant argues that, although the Nebraska and South Dakota convictions were classified as felonies in those states, they would have been punished as misdemeanors in Wyoming. He contends, therefore, that the convictions should not have been used to enhance his punishment under the habitual criminal statute. We endeavor to interpret statutes in accordance with the Legislature's intent. We construe the statute as a whole,giving effect to every word, clause, and sentence, and we construe together all parts of the statute in pari materia .
Courts determine as a matter of law whether a statute is clear or ambiguous.
When we determine that the statute is clear and unambiguous, we give effect to the plain language of the statute. Under the plain wording of the statute, a person is a habitual offender if, when he is convicted of a violent felony, he has been convicted of a felony in Wyoming or elsewhere on two or more previous occasions. The fact that the previous convictions were felonies in the rendering states but may not have been felonies in Wyoming is immaterial. The convictions were still felony convictions. If the legislature had wished to limit application of the statute to persons who were convicted of conduct which is punishable as a felony under Wyoming law, it could have easily put that language into the statute.