Case Name: Abdula AMIN, Appellant (Defendant), v. The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff)
Court: Supreme Court of Wyoming
Jurisdiction: Wyoming
Decision Date: 1989-05-19
Citations: 774 P.2d 597
Docket Number: No. 87-289
Parties: Abdula AMIN, Appellant (Defendant), v. The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff).
Judges: Before CARDINE, C.J., and THOMAS, URBIGKIT, MACY and BROWN, J., Retired.
Reporter: Pacific Reporter 2d
Volume: 774
Pages: 597–621

Head Matter:
Abdula AMIN, Appellant (Defendant), v. The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff).
No. 87-289.
Supreme Court of Wyoming.
May 19, 1989.
Leonard D. Munker, State Public Defender and Carol Serelson, appellate counsel, for appellant.
Joseph B. Meyer, Atty. Gen., John W. Renneisen, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., Karen A. Byrne, and Gerald P. Luckhaupt, Asst. At-tys. Gen., for appellee.
Before CARDINE, C.J., and THOMAS, URBIGKIT, MACY and BROWN, J., Retired.

Opinion:
BROWN, Justice, Retired.
Abdula Amin appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. That petition raises the following issues:
I
Appellant was denied effective assistance, due process, and equal protection by counsel's failure to argue marital privilege as means to defeat joinder of his trial with that of his spouse.
II
Counsel's failure to effectively cross-examine Valerie Amin deprived petitioner of his constitutional right to confront witnesses and effective assistance of counsel.
III
Counsel's failure to object to improper impeachment of Valerie Amin was prejudicial to appellant denying him among other rights, due process of law and effective assistance of counsel.
IV
Appellant was denied effective assistance of counsel when evidence supporting appellant's defense was not put before the jury.
V
Appellant's counsel was ineffective. Counsel was ineffective when they advised appellant to not testify so that he could preserve his appeal to the habitual criminal case.
VI
Appellant was denied due process of law by the failure of mitigating evidence to be provided to the jury in the habitual criminal case.
VII
The trial court erred in denying appellant's petition for post-conviction relief.
Amin did not raise ineffective assistance of appellate counsel as an issue in his petition.
We affirm.
The facts of this case are set out in Amin v. State, 695 P.2d 1021, 1023 (Wyo.1985), which affirmed Amin's conviction of aiding and abetting aggravated robbery. On January 3, 1987, Amin filed his original petition for post-conviction relief under W.S. 7-14-101 through 7-14-108 (1977). The state filed a motion to dismiss on March 2,1987, and Amin responded to that motion by filing his own motion to amend his petition under W.S. 7-14-104 (1977). The district court responded to these motions by appointing counsel for Amin and withholding a ruling on the state's motion to dismiss until appointed counsel could respond to the state's motion. Amin's amended petition for post-conviction relief was filed on May 29, 1987. The state filed a motion to dismiss on June 29, 1987. The district court held a hearing on Amin's amended petition and the motion to dismiss on August 20, 1987. At the conclusion of that hearing the district court asked for further briefing on the issue of marital privilege. Only the state filed a supplemental brief on that issue. After considering the supplemental brief and reviewing the record, the district court denied Amin's amended petition on October 27, 1987. This appeal followed.
This court addressed the scope of questions that can be raised in a petition for post-conviction relief in Cutbirth v. State, 751 P.2d 1257, 1261 (Wyo.1988), where we stated:
This court has taken a disciplined approach to post-conviction relief, pointing out that it is not a substitute for the right of review upon appeal from a conviction, nor is it to be treated as an appeal. Pote v. State, Wyo., 733 P.2d 1018 (1987); Hoggatt v. State, Wyo., 606 P.2d 718 (1980); Johnson v. State, Wyo., 592 P.2d 285, cert. denied 442 U.S. 932, 99 S.Ct. 2864, 61 L.Ed.2d 300 (1979); Munoz v. Maschner, Wyo., 590 P.2d 1352 (1979). Questions which may be raised by motion for post-conviction relief are limited to those of constitutional magnitude which manifest a miscarriage of justice. Wright v. State, Wyo., 718 P.2d 35 (1986); Hoggatt v. State, supra. Those issues which could have been presented on appeal are not open to challenge by a motion for post-conviction relief because they are foreclosed by the doctrine of res judicata. Wright v. State, supra; Hoggatt v. State, supra; Munoz v. Maschner, supra.
We went on in Cutbirth to explain that this is a rule of procedural waiver, which parallels procedural waiver for post-conviction relief in the federal courts. Cutbirth, 751 P.2d at 1261-62, and cases cited therein.
The issues Amin raises in his amended petition are carefully phrased in terms of constitutional infirmities, based on a theme of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The district court carefully reviewed each of them in its August 20, 1987, hearing, and then denied the amended petition because the issues it raises are procedurally barred under Wyoming law. See Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. -, -, 109 S.Ct. 1038, 1043-44, 103 L.Ed.2d 308, 316-19 (1989); and Campbell v. State, 772 P.2d 543 (Wyo.1989). We agree with that determination.
Affirmed.