Opinion ID: 2634905
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Did trial counsel provide ineffective assistance by failing to move for a judgment of acquittal?

Text: [¶ 18] The salient portion of W.R.Cr.P. 29(a) reads as follows: The court on motion of a defendant or of its own motion shall order the entry of judgment of acquittal of one or more offenses charged in the indictment, information or citation after the evidence on either side is closed if the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction of such offense or offenses. It goes without saying that the test to be applied in granting or denying a motion for judgment of acquittal is sufficiency of the evidence. See, e.g., Mattern v. State, 2007 WY 24, ¶ 28, 151 P.3d 1116, 1129 (Wyo.2007); Dover v. State, 664 P.2d 536, 537 (Wyo.1983); Chavez v. State, 601 P.2d 166, 168 (Wyo. 1979); Montez v. State, 527 P.2d 1330, 1331 (Wyo.1974). Upon review of the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal, this Court performs the same test. Cloman v. State, 574 P.2d 410, 416 (Wyo.1978). [¶ 19] We will not further pursue this issue because Appellant presents no analysis of the evidence and no cogent argument as to why this Court should reverse his conviction due to trial counsel's failure to move to acquit. In fact, Appellant admits in his Brief that, [g]iven the evidence as presented, counsel may have not been able to prevail on a Rule 29 motion.... Once again, we can only surmise that trial counsel did not move for a judgment of acquittal because sufficient evidence clearly had been admitted upon which the jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Appellant has failed to prove ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to file a W.R.Cr.P. 29 motion.