Opinion ID: 2638900
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Representation at Preliminary Hearing

Text: [¶23] In his second claim of error, Mr. Janssen asserts that he was denied counsel at his preliminary hearing. We must reject this claim because the record before us does not establish that Mr. Janssen was denied counsel. Additionally, even if Mr. Janssen was not represented by counsel at the preliminary hearing, he waived the right to now claim error by failing to raise the issue prior to trial. [¶24] On appeal, Mr. Janssen has the burden to affirmatively establish that error occurred. Doles v. State, 2002 WY 146, ¶ 5, 55 P.3d 29, 31 (Wyo. 2002) (citing Gregory v. Sanders, 635 P.2d 795, 801 (Wyo. 1981)). Accordingly, with regard to this issue, Mr. Janssen must provide record support that he was denied counsel at his preliminary hearing. He has failed to do so. He requested counsel on October 4, 2001, and although there is some indication that a preliminary hearing was scheduled for that day, the record contains no transcript or tape of any hearing held on October 4, 2001. [4] The record before us indicates that a preliminary hearing was held on October 9, 2001, and on that date, counsel from the public defender's office represented Mr. Janssen. [¶25] We note that Mr. Janssen failed to raise the issue before the district court prior to trial. [U]nless some reason is shown why counsel could not have discovered and challenged the defect before trial, it will generally be assumed that any objections to the preliminary proceedings were considered and waived, and no post-conviction remedies will be available. Trujillo v. State, 880 P.2d 575, 582-583 (Wyo. 1994) (quoting Blue v. United States, 342 F.2d 894, 900-01 (D.C.Cir.1965)). Mr. Janssen offers no explanation why this issue was not presented to the district court. As we stated recently, [i]t is only appropriate that a defendant be required to object to alleged errors in the preliminary hearing procedures before trial when the district court has the opportunity to correct them. Coleman v. State, 2005 WY 69, ¶ 8, 115 P.3d 411, 413 (Wyo. 2005). Failure to do so bars review. Id.