Court Opinion

ID: 9553648
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:33:08.668168+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:31:59.012417
License: Public Domain

URBIGKIT, Justice,
specially concurring.
I completely concur with the majority’s opinion but write further only to discuss terminology. Assessment in this jurisdiction of criminal costs in criminal as well as civil cases has a strong precedent. Kaess v. State, 748 P.2d 698 (Wyo.1987); State v. Dieringer, 708 P.2d 1 (Wyo.1985); Hahn v. State, 78 Wyo. 258, 322 P.2d 896 (1958). Prosecutorial costs as a punitive assessment against the convicted individual invokes a more recently developing penalty thesis which can address investigation and trial preparation as well as facility and jury maintenance incurrences. Completely different concepts and constitutional questions arise. Cf. Johnson v. State, 532 P.2d 598 (Wyo.1975). Assessed court costs are essentially reimbursement obligations as similarly applied to both criminal and civil cases. See W.R.C.P. 1; W.R.C.P. 54(d); and W.R.Cr.P. 20(a). Prosecutorial costs frequently involving institutional expenditures whether itemized in amount or arbitrarily established to be a stated sum constitute a punitive assessment as a conviction punishment. Present here, was a trial court’s application of the conventional court costs reimbursement obligation and not the punitive prosecutorial cost. Consequently, this case is completely consistent with this court’s recent review in Kaess, 748 P.2d 698. See likewise Burke v. State, 746 P.2d 852 (Wyo.1987) and compare retroactivity review in Loomer v. State, 768 P.2d 1042 (Wyo.1989).