Source: http://wyolawlibrary.blogspot.com/2011_04_01_archive.html
Timestamp: 2015-11-26 14:06:45
Document Index: 86658619

Matched Legal Cases: ['art. 1', '§ 6', 'art. 1', '§ 6', '§ 36', '§ 36', '§ 36']

Law Library Letter: April 2011
Summary of Decision April 27, 2011
[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it is issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation to a quote the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion will need to have the reporter page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation from this, or any future opinion using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library and we will provide any needed assistance] Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court Case Name: Center v. State
Citation: 2011 WY 73
Docket Number: S-10-0211
URL: http://wyomcases.courts.state.wy.us/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=462050
Representing Appellant (Defendant): Diane E. Courselle, Defender Aid Program, University of Wyoming College of Law; and Shannon McDonald, Student Intern.
Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Bruce A. Salzburg, Wyoming Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Justin A. Daraie, Assistant Attorney General.
Facts: Appellant entered a plea of nolo contendere to the crime of aggravated assault and battery. Judgment was entered on that plea and sentence and a Mittimus were entered. The sentence imposed was incarceration for a period of 36 to 80 months and no mention was made of probation. The execution of the sentence was, in essence, conditionally stayed pending Appellant’s admission to an alcohol treatment program. Appellant was granted a “furlough” for that purpose. The district court made it very clear that if Appellant did not succeed at the treatment program, he would be remanded to the Department of Corrections, “no hearing, no nothing.” Appellant failed at the program and was transferred without a hearing to the County Detention Appellant, and then to the custody of the Department of Corrections. Appellant appeals from an order of the district court denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence. He contends that the district court sent him from an alcohol treatment center to the state penitentiary, in a manner that violated his constitutional rights (due process of law). Issues: Whether the district court was in error by sending Appellant directly to prison, without holding either a preliminary or final probation revocation hearing, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause and Wyo. Const. art. 1, § 6. Whether the district court improperly imposed a sentence providing for a later revocation by non-judicial personnel, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause and Wyo. Const. art. 1, § 6.
Holdings: Sentencing decisions are normally within the discretion of the trial court. Such discretion is limited, however, inasmuch as a court may not enter an illegal sentence. A sentence is illegal if it violates the constitution or other law. W.R.Cr.P. 35(a) allows a court to correct an illegal sentence at any time. However, claims brought pursuant to W.R.Cr.P. 35(a) are subject to the principles of res judicata. The res judicata doctrine applies when a defendant could have raised such an issue in an earlier appeal or motion for sentence reduction but did not do so. In the present action, Appellant did not appeal the judgment and sentence imposed by the district court at the time it was imposed. Additionally, in a later pleading filed in the district court, Appellant filed a “Motion for Reduction of Sentence,” but did not challenge the sentence itself. Appellant then filed a “Petition for Writ of Review” which was denied. Subsequently, the district court entered an order denying Appellant’s motion for correction of illegal sentence and Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellant’s sentence was not illegal and, when viewed in its entirety and in the unusual context of this case, he was not denied due process of law.
The sentence imposed by the district court was unusual and, perhaps, ill-advised. However, the record on appeal does not show circumstances that render it an “illegal” sentence. The order of the district court denying Appellant’s motion to correct an illegal sentence is remanded to the district court for the purpose of amending the disputed sentence so as to credit Appellant for all time served in connection with his detention at alcohol treatment center. The sentence is otherwise affirmed.
J. Hill delivered the opinion for the court. J. Voigt, joined by J. Burke, dissented. A statute or court rule cannot be located with grants authority to a district court to impose a prison sentence, stay execution of that sentence, release the defendant with conditions, but not on probation, have that release revoked without a hearing, and not give credit for time served at a facility where the defendant was subject to a charge of escape. A sentence that imposes a punishment not authorized by the legislature is illegal.
[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it is issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation to a quote the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion will need to have the reporter page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation from this, or any future opinion using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library and we will provide any needed assistance] Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court Case Name: Mathewson v. Estate of Helen Isabel Nielsen
Citation: 2011 WY 71
Docket Number: S-10-0200
URL: http://wyomcases.courts.state.wy.us/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=462044
Representing Appellant (Petitioner): Paul D. Mathewson, pro se.
Representing Appellee (Respondent): Edward G. Luhm, Worland, Wyoming.
Date of Decision: April 25, 2011
Facts: Appellant objected to an application for summary distribution of his grandmother’s estate. The district court overruled his objection and granted summary judgment to the applicants. After the district court denied Appellant’s motion for a new trial, he appealed. The Court concluded that his motion for a new trial was actually a void motion for reconsideration, rendering his notice of appeal untimely. The Court had no jurisdiction to consider his appeal.
Issues: Whether Appellant’s notice of appeal was timely, thereby conferring jurisdiction on the Court. Holdings: Although neither party to this appeal raised the issue of jurisdiction, the Court had a duty to determine whether it had jurisdiction to entertain an appeal. This Court’s jurisdiction is limited to appeals from final, appealable orders. W.R.A.P. 2.01 requires that a notice of appeal be filed within 30 days from entry of an appealable order. Appellant filed a motion for a new trial pursuant to W.R.C.P. 59. Rule 59(a) presupposes that the district court conducted a trial, and the grounds upon which a new trial may be granted all pertain to irregularities in the trial proceedings or errors committed at trial. There was no trial in this case; the district court decided the case on summary judgment. A motion for a new trial was not appropriate. Giving Appellant the benefit of the doubt, the Court concluded that he may have intended to file a motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to W.R.C.P. 59(e). A motion to alter or amend a judgment “is not a mechanism to re-litigate issues that the court already decided, nor should parties make additional arguments which should have been made before judgment.” Appellant did not present any valid reason to alter or amend the judgment; he was simply seeking reconsideration of the district court’s summary judgment order. As such, his Rule 59 motion was actually a motion for reconsideration and did not toll the time for appealing from the district court’s order granting summary judgment and distributing the estate assets. The summary judgment order was entered on May 20, 2010. Appellant’s August 30, 2010, notice of appeal was untimely under W.R.A.P 2.01 because it was not filed within 30 days after entry of a final appealable order. Appeal dismissed. Chief Justice Kite delivered the opinion for the court.
W.R.A.P. 2.01,
Summary of Decision April 22, 2011 [SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it is issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation to a quote the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion will need to have the reporter page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation from this, or any future opinion using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library and we will provide any needed assistance] Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court Case Name: Harris v. State
Citation: 2011 WY 70
Docket Number: S-10-0144
http://wyomcases.courts.state.wy.us/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=462038
Representing Appellant (Defendant): Diane Lozano, State Public Defender; Tina N. Olson, Appellate Counsel, and Kirk A. Morgan, Assistant Appellate Counsel, Wyoming Public Defender Program.
Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Bruce A. Salzburg, Wyoming Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Stewart M. Young, Faculty Director, Prosecution Assistance Program; and Jessica Y. Frint, Student Director, Prosecution Assistance Program.
Date of Decision: April 22, 2011
Facts: Appellant was charged with felony aggravated assault and battery as well as misdemeanor interference with a peace officer. He was acquitted of the felony charge but convicted on the misdemeanor charge. As a part of his sentence, Appellant was required to pay a portion of the costs of prosecution (witness fees and costs). Appellant contends that he should not have to pay witness fees for witnesses whose testimony was primarily related to the felony count for which he was acquitted, as well as because the State failed to present any evidence to support its claim for the witness fees. Issues: Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it assessed costs of prosecution fees associated with the State’s witnesses without an adequate showing by the State.
Holdings: The prosecution failed to introduce evidence of any sort that could serve to sustain the district court’s imposition of the witness fees and costs on Appellant. .
Wyoming’s jurisprudence is consonant with that of most jurisdictions in that witness fees may not be imposed in any case in which the defendant is acquitted. Witness fees and costs could have been taxed to Appellant for the misdemeanor conviction, but the court is hesitant to intimate that the entirety of those costs could be assessed even though there was an acquittal on the primary offense. As with all aspects of sentencing, the district court is accorded wide discretion and assessment of 100% of the witness fees for the misdemeanor conviction, given the circumstances of this case, appears to exceed that discretion. It should be noted that one witness gave no testimony regarding the misdemeanor and one witness gave no testimony at all. The prevailing law suggests that witness fees may be taxed to a party even though a witness did not testify if the witness was ready to testify but extrinsic circumstances rendered his or her testimony unnecessary. There is nothing in the record on appeal that could serve to verify that there were such qualifying circumstances in this case.
The Judgment of the district court is affirmed. The Sentence is also affirmed, with the exception of that portion of the Judgment and Sentence which ordered Appellant to pay costs of prosecution. This matter is remanded to the district court for such proceedings as are necessary to accomplish that result.
costs of prosecution,
Summary of Decision April 20, 2011
[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it is issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation to a quote the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion will need to have the reporter page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation from this, or any future opinion using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library and we will provide any needed assistance] Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court Case Name: Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility, Wyo. State Bar v. Stith Citation: 2011 WY 69
Docket Number: D-11-0002
URL: http://wyomcases.courts.state.wy.us/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=462023 Date of Decision: April 20, 2011 Facts: Respondent failed to disclose the existence of insurance that might be available to pay a judgment or reimburse someone who has made payments on a judgment as required by Rule 26(a)(1)(D) of the Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure. The Board of Professional Responsibility found that Respondent violated Rules 3.1(c), 3.4(c), 8.4(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d) of the Wyoming Rules of Professional Conduct. Holdings: The Court found that the Board’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendations should be approved, confirmed and adopted by the Court, and that Respondent should be publicly censured and sanctioned in the manner recommended by the Board.
Holdings: The court considered the version of W.S. § 36-5-105(c) in effect in 2007, at the time the state lease was expiring and the applicants submitted their bids. Specifically, the Court considered the meaning of the words “by meeting the highest bid offered by another qualified applicant . . . whose bid is based on the fair market value, using the formula developed by the board pursuant to W.S. 36-5-101(b).” The Court determined that § 36-5-101(b) expressly provided that rentals must be at least the fair market value as calculated using the Board’s formula, but that it did not state rentals must be the fair market value calculated using the formula. Furthermore, while § 36-5-101(b) expressly provided that rentals must at a minimum reflect fair market value, nowhere did it suggest that there was a maximum value for bids the Board could accept. The fair market value was the price the Board was willing to accept and an applicant was willing to pay. Here, the Board was willing to accept a higher competing bid, and the competing applicant was willing to pay the amount of its bid. The Court concluded that Appellee was required to pay that amount in order to keep t