Court Opinion

ID: 9550279
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:33:24.313507+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:21:19.951835
License: Public Domain

CARDINE, Justice.
This appeal is from the denial of appellant Israel Sanchez’s petition for post-conviction relief. The issues presented for our determination are whether appellant’s sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in that “good time” will not accrue to reduce his maximum sentence below the required minimum sentence of twenty-two years and whether his constitutional right to due process was violated by failure of the district court to appoint an attorney to represent him in the post-conviction relief proceeding.
We affirm.
By order filed February 14, 1984, appellant was sentenced to a term of not less than twenty-two years nor more than twenty-four years in the penitentiary, having been found guilty by jury of second-degree murder in violation of § 6-2-104, W.S.1977. On March 10,1987, appellant filed an application for post-conviction relief in district court. He also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and for appointment of counsel. The State, on March 20, 1987, filed a motion to dismiss and a memorandum in support thereof.
On May 15,1987, the district court granted the State’s motion to dismiss. Appellant’s appeal from the order of dismissal was dismissed on July 10,1987, for want of prosecution. Wé reinstated the appeal on July 24, 1987, and it is now before us for decision.
The issues presented in this case concern the sentence after conviction and appointment of an attorney. These identical issues were considered in Whitney v. State, Wyo., 745 P.2d 902 (1987), and decided adversely to the position of appellant in this case. As required by our pronouncements in Whitney and the doctrine of stare deci-sis,
We affirm.
URBIGKIT and MACY, JJ., each filed separate dissenting opinions.