Opinion ID: 2598891
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Did the district court commit plain error in failing to dismiss the stalking charge based upon the appellant's constitutional double jeopardy right?

Text: [¶ 13] There was no double jeopardy motion or objection below. We do not generally consider issues not raised below. Belden v. State, 2003 WY 89, ¶ 55, 73 P.3d 1041, 1090 (Wyo. 2003). We have previously held, however, that the issue of double jeopardy is jurisdictional because it involves the power of the State to bring the appellant into court, and it may, therefore, be raised at any time. Taylor v. State, 2003 WY 97, ¶ 11, 74 P.3d 1236, 1239 (Wyo. 2003); Kitzke v. State, 2002 WY 147, ¶ 8, 55 P.3d 696, 699 (Wyo. 2002). In these circumstances, we apply the plain error standard of review. Lafond v. State, 2004 WY 51, ¶ 56, 89 P.3d 324, 340-41 (Wyo. 2004). Even when constitutional error is alleged, each criterion must be satisfied or a claim for review under the plain-error doctrine will fail. Miller v. State, 904 P.2d 344, 348 (Wyo. 1995). To establish plain error, the appellant must prove (1) the record clearly reflects the alleged error; (2) the existence of a clear and unequivocal rule of law; (3) a clear and obvious transgression of that rule of law; and (4) the error adversely affected a substantial right resulting in material prejudice to him. Sanchez v. State, 2006 WY 12, ¶ 19, 126 P.3d 897, 904 (Wyo. 2006). [6] [¶ 14] The appellant contends that his right to protection against double jeopardy was violated when he was convicted and punished for the August 23, 2006 protection order violation, and then was convicted and punished for stalking based on a course of conduct that included the same incident. For plain error purposes, the record leaves little doubt that the factual part of this analysis is correct. As set forth above, the State clearly relied upon the August 23, 2006 incident as evidence to support the stalking charge. See supra ¶¶ 6-12. [¶ 15] The appellant`s legal arguments are not, however, as simply stated as the above synopsis. First, quoting Daniel v. State, 2008 WY 87, ¶ 8, 189 P.3d 859, 862 (Wyo. 2008), he contends that the double jeopardy clause prohibits the prosecution of a person for a greater offense after he has been convicted of a lesser-included offense. See Ohio v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 493, 501, 104 S.Ct. 2536, 2542, 81 L.Ed.2d 425 (1984); and Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 97 S.Ct. 2221, 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977). Next, relying upon Edge v. Commonwealth, 883 N.E.2d 928, 930-32 (Mass. 2008), he argues that violation of a protection order is a lesser-included offense of felony stalking. Finally, while nominally paying homage to the statutory elements test found in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304, 52 S.Ct. 180, 182, 76 L.Ed.2d 306 (1932), he asks this Court to go beyond that test in analyzing both the lesser-included offense issue and the double jeopardy issue, and to consider the underlying facts and evidence used to prove the separate offenses. In this regard, he cites Bilderback v. State, 13 P.3d 249, 254-55 (Wyo. 2000), where this Court held that the separate crimes of attempted second-degree murder and using a firearm to commit a felony merged for sentencing purposes where the appellant did not commit any other act which could have constituted attempted second-degree murder other than using the firearm. Finally, he argues that only one prosecution is permissible for a continuing offense, and that acquittal or conviction for an offense that consists of a series of acts extending over a period of time bars prosecution for other acts during that period of time. See In re Snow, 120 U.S. 274, 285, 7 S.Ct. 556, 561, 30 L.Ed. 658 (1887); and Commonwealth v. Robinson, 126 Mass. 259, 261-62 (1878). [¶ 16] The State begins its analysis of this issue by noting our holding in Meyers v. State, 2005 WY 163, ¶ 8, 124 P.3d 710, 714 (Wyo. 2005), that the double jeopardy protections of the U.S. Constitution and the Wyoming Constitution have the same meaning and are coextensive in application. Next, the State agrees with the appellant that Daniel v. State, 2008 WY 87, ¶ 8, 189 P.3d 859, 862 (Wyo. 2008), holds that the double jeopardy clause prohibits the prosecution of a defendant for a greater offense after that defendant has been convicted of a lesser-included offense. Applying the statutory elements test of Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304, 52 S.Ct. 180, 182, 76 L.Ed.2d 306 (1932), however, the State concludes that the crime of violating a protection order is clearly not a lesser-included offense of the crime of felony stalking. Finally, the State contends that the double jeopardy doctrine is not violated in this case because the two charges were originally tried together, and the retrial of the stalking charge was only necessitated by the jury deadlock on that issue. See Meyers, 2005 WY 163, ¶ 10, 124 P.3d at 714. [¶ 17] We note first that the State is correct in its assertion that the December 2007 felony stalking retrial was not a subsequent proceeding, but was a continuation of the earlier proceeding. As just recently restated by the United States Supreme Court, the failure of the jury to reach a verdict . . . is not an event which terminates jeopardy. Yeager v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 129 S.Ct. 2360, 2369, 174 L.Ed.2d 78 (2009) (quoting Richardson v. United States, 468 U.S. 317, 325, 104 S.Ct. 3081, 3086, 82 L.Ed.2d 242 (1984)). The second trial does not put the defendant in jeopardy twice; instead, it simply follows the declaration of a mistrial and continuation of the initial jeopardy. Yeager, ___ U.S. at ___, 129 S.Ct. at 2366; see also Meyers, 2005 WY 163, ¶ 10, 124 P.3d at 714 (retrial after hung jury does not violate double jeopardy). What that leaves us with is the question of whether there is any reason the appellant could not initially have been charged with both violation of the protection order and felony stalking, and the question of whether, once the appellant was convicted of both, the crimes merged for purposes of sentencing. If double jeopardy was violated in this case, it had to have been in the sense of multiple punishments, rather than in the sense of subsequent prosecutions. [¶ 18] The State is also correct that the crime of violation of a protection order as defined by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-4-404 is not a lesser-included offense of the crime of stalking as defined by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-506(b). [7] The elements of the former simply are not a subset of the elements of the latter. See Javorina v. State, 2008 WY 35, ¶ 5, 180 P.3d 205, 207 (Wyo. 2008); and Heywood v. State, 2007 WY 149, ¶ 10, 170 P.3d 1227, 1230 (Wyo. 2007). The state was entitled to charge both crimes and to have both presented to a jury. Meyers, 2005 WY 163, ¶ 10, 124 P.3d at 714. Furthermore, the fact that a continuing course of conduct engendered several charges creates no impediment to multiple convictions and sentences. Rouse v. State, 966 P.2d 967, 970 (Wyo. 1998). Stalking is a course-of-conduct crime based on harassment, the definition of which includes several criminal acts, such as vandalism and battery. Surely, the legislature did not intend for a stalker to be immune from punishment for his or her criminal course of conduct on the ground that he or she has been or was also being punished for an underlying criminal act that is not, under the statutory elements test, a lesser-included offense. If we were to accept Daker`s argument, then it would be impossible for the State to prosecute repeat offenders of the stalking statute as, having once used the evidence to demonstrate a course of conduct, the State would be forever barred from using that evidence again in establishing a subsequent stalking violation. As stalking is, by its very nature, a cumulative crime, Daker`s interpretation of double jeopardy would eviscerate the purpose of the stalking statute, leaving would-be stalkers free to begin stalking their victim with a clean slate following a stalking conviction. We cannot believe the legislature intended such result. Daker v. State, 548 S.E.2d 354, 356-57 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001). It would seem that this rationale would apply whether the conviction for the first incident of stalking-type conduct was for stalking, itself, or was for another crime, such as assault or violation of a protection order. [¶ 19] We conclude that the fact that the appellant was punished for violating a protection order did not prohibit his also being punished for felony stalking, despite the fact that the conduct upon which the protection order violation was based became part of the conduct upon which the felony stalking conviction was based. The thesis underlying Bilderback and similar cases does not prohibit multiple punishments where the first offense being punished is only one of a series of acts that constitute the second offense. [8]