Court Opinion

ID: 9784528
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 20:47:28.143328+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:35:55.826539
License: Public Domain

VOIGT, Justice,
specially concurring.
[¶ 14] I concur in the result, but this appeal should be dismissed. See Patrick v. State, 2005 WY 32, ¶¶ 19-21, 108 P.3d 838, 844 (Wyo.2005) (Voigt, J. dissenting). The appellant filed his motion to correct a clerical mistake on September 26, 2003. Neither W.R.Cr.P. 36, nor W.R.Cr.P. 47, establishes a procedure for the district court’s timely determination of such a motion. In such event, W.R.Cr.P. 1(a) leads to the application of W.R.C.P. 6(c)(2), which states that a motion not determined within ninety days of filing is deemed denied. W.R.A.P. 2.01(a), in turn, requires that an appeal be filed within thirty days from entry of the appealable order. The appellant’s motion was deemed denied on December 26, 2003, and the time for appealing that denial expired on January 26, 2004. See Paxton Resources, L.L.C. v. Brannaman, 2004 WY 93, ¶¶ 4-18, 95 P.3d 796, 798-802 (Wyo.2004), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 976, 160 L.Ed.2d 901 (2005) (application of W.R.A.P. 2.01 and 2.02 in a deemed-denied situation). The district court’s purported denial of the motion on February 27, 2004, had no effect because the district court lacked jurisdiction.