Opinion ID: 2378953
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Did the district court have jurisdiction to try Mr. Breazeale on a charge different from the one on which he was bound over by the circuit court?

Text: [¶ 26] After a preliminary hearing, the circuit court bound Mr. Breazeale over to the district court on charges of aggravated homicide by vehicle in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-106(b)(i) and (ii). Approximately five months later, and only a few days before trial, the circuit court filed an Amended Transcript, apparently to correct the date of Mr. Breazeale's initial appearance. The amended document stated that Mr. Breazeale had been bound over for trial on a charge of violating Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-101(b)(i) and (ii), a statute relating to murder in the first degree. Mr. Breazeale contends that, because the circuit court bound him over on a charge of murder, the district court lacked jurisdiction to try him on a charge of aggravated homicide by vehicle. The jurisdiction of the trial court is a question of law subject to de novo review. DeLoge v. State, 2010 WY 60, ¶ 15, 231 P.3d 862, 865 (Wyo.2010). [¶ 27] For purposes of this case, we can agree with Mr. Breazeale's basic contention that a defendant should not be bound over to the district court on one charge, but tried on a different charge. See Jackson v. State, 891 P.2d 70, 74 (Wyo.1995). However, a review of the record establishes that the recitation in the Amended Transcript that Mr. Breazeale was charged under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-101(b)(i) and (ii) (first degree murder) was a clerical or typographical error. The murder statute, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-101(b), does not include subsections (i) or (ii). The aggravated vehicular homicide statute, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-106(b), does contain subsections (b)(i) and (b)(ii). [¶ 28] The record indicates that this typographical error never caused any confusion about the actual charges against Mr. Breazeale. The Information and supporting affidavit indicated that he was charged with aggravated vehicular homicide, as did the criminal warrant. The circuit court informed Mr. Breazeale he was charged with aggravated homicide by vehicle. He was arraigned in the district court on a charge of aggravated vehicular homicide. The jury verdict specified the charge against him as aggravated vehicular homicide. Transcripts of the trial, motions hearing, and other proceedings leave no doubt that everyone involved knew that the charge against Mr. Breazeale was aggravated homicide by vehicle. [¶ 29] Mr. Breazeale correctly asserts that he has a constitutional right to be informed of the nature of the charge against him. See Estrada-Sanchez v. State, 2003 WY 45, ¶ 11, 66 P.3d 703, 708 (Wyo. 2003). In the circumstances of this case, we are satisfied that he was fully informed. The typographical error listing the wrong statute number was utterly harmless and did not deprive the district court of jurisdiction to try Mr. Breazeale on the correct charge of aggravated homicide by vehicle.