Opinion ID: 6534236
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Public Officer Acting Before Qualifying-Sufficiency of the Evidence

Text: [¶25] Mr. Haskell also was convicted of performing duties of his office before qualifying, in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-5-116 (LexisNexis 2013), which stated at the time of Mr. Haskell's alleged criminal conduct: An elected or appointed public officer or his deputy commits a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) if he performs any duty of his office without taking and subscribing the oath prescribed by law or before giving and filing the bond required by law. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-5-116 . [¶26] Mr. Haskell argues we should reverse his conviction because purchasing law enforcement items for the Sublette County Sheriff's Office is not a duty of the Sublette County Sheriff. The State alleges, and we agree, Mr. Haskell raises this issue for the first time on appeal. [¶27] We will not consider an issue raised for the first time on appeal unless there is a fundamental error affecting a substantial right of the appellant. Thompson v. State , 2018 WY 3 , ¶ 24, 408 P.3d 756 , 763 (Wyo. 2018) (quoting Belden v. State , 2003 WY 89 , ¶ 55, 73 P.3d 1041 (Wyo. 2003) ). However, the proposition that a defendant's guilt must be proved with competent evidence bearing upon each of the crime's elements always involves a fundamental right. Id. ¶ 25, 408 P.3d at 763 (quoting Garay v. State , 2007 WY 130 , ¶ 2 n.1, 165 P.3d 99 , 101 n.1 (Wyo. 2007) ). Consequently, we do not apply waiver to a claim that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the defendant's conviction. Id. (citation omitted). In Thompson , we considered an argument raised for the first time on appeal that evidence was legally insufficient to support convictions for aggravated assault and battery by threatening to use a deadly weapon because a bottle and a clay art piece were not weapons capable of being drawn under the statute. See id. ,¶¶ 26-27, 408 P.3d at 763-64 . Mr. Haskell's argument similarly challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for his conviction under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-5-116 (LexisNexis 2017). Therefore, we will consider his claim under the sufficiency of the evidence standard explained. See supra ¶ 21. [¶28] Mr. Haskell claims the duties of his office are limited to those provided by statute. He argues the State did not accuse him of violating the Uniform Municipal Fiscal Procedures Act, see Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 16-4-101 (LexisNexis 2017) et seq. , and, thus, the only statutes pertinent to the charge against him are Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 18-3-601 through -611 (LexisNexis 2017), which specifically govern the office of county sheriff. He alleges a county sheriff's only duty regarding  county funds is to not spend beyond his budget. In response, the State claims the statutes and the evidence establish that Mr. Haskell performed duties of his office in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-5-116 . [¶29] To resolve this issue, we first must interpret Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-5-116 . 7 Statutory interpretation is a question of law which we review de novo.  Adekale v. State , 2015 WY 30 , ¶ 12, 344 P.3d 761 , 765 (Wyo. 2015) (citing Crain v. State , 2009 WY 128 , ¶ 8, 218 P.3d 934 , 938 (Wyo. 2009) ). The plain, ordinary, and usual meaning of words used in a statute controls in the absence of clear statutory provisions to the contrary. Id. [¶30] The plain language of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-5-116 uses the broad phrase, any duty of his office, and is clear and unambiguous. Regarding the term, any, we have stated: The common and ordinary understanding of the word is that it means all or every, or one or more. Necessarily it gives to the language employed a broad and comprehensive grasp. McKay v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y of U.S. , 421 P.2d 166 , 169 (Wyo. 1966) (internal citations omitted); see Garton v. State , 910 P.2d 1348 , 1353 (Wyo. 1996). Such is the case in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-5-116 . [¶31] Under that statute, any duty of the office of sheriff clearly includes the specific duties listed in Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 18-3-601 through -611. Among those duties, a sheriff shall [p]ay and account for all monies which come into his office, as provided by law[.] Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 18-3-609 (a)(i) (LexisNexis 2017). A sheriff also shall [p]erform all other duties required of him by law. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 18-3-609 (a)(iv). Through this catch-all provision, the statutes specific to sheriffs incorporate legal duties found in other parts of the law, such as the Uniform Municipal Fiscal Procedures Act, Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 16-4-101 through -125. Consequently, those duties are also included in the broad language, any duty of his office, in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-5-116 . [¶32] The Uniform Municipal Fiscal Procedures Act governs a sheriff's office as a department of the county. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-4-102 (a)(vii) (LexisNexis 2017). As such, the sheriff and his office are subject to the act's required county budget process and restrictions on expenditures. 8 See Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 16-4-104 (a), -108(a) (LexisNexis 2017). The act also requires, All purchases or all encumbrances on behalf of any municipality shall be made or incurred only upon an order or approval of the person duly authorized to make such purchases except encumbrances or expenditures directly investigated and reported and approved by the governing body. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-4-107 (LexisNexis 2017). We conclude that a sheriff's statutory duties pertaining to municipal fiscal procedures qualify as any duty of his office under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-5-116 . [¶33] We now consider whether the jury could have reasonably concluded the State proved the elements of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-5-116 against Mr. Haskell. The witnesses at trial testified that one duty of the Sublette County Sheriff is purchasing items for the sheriff's office. The evidence at trial also demonstrated that the Sublette County Sheriff was authorized to purchase uniforms in accordance with the county's budget for the sheriff's office. The evidence also infers that Mr. Haskell believed the sheriff had the authority and duty to purchase new uniforms because he included buying them as part of his campaign platform. This evidence is consistent with the duties of the office of sheriff recognized by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-5-116 and is sufficient for the jury to have reasonably  concluded Mr. Haskell performed a duty of the office of sheriff before being sworn in. We therefore affirm his conviction under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-5-116 .