Court Opinion

ID: 9551112
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:47:56.65966+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:23:05.377479
License: Public Domain

THOMAS, Chief Justice,
specially concurring.
I certainly agree that the judgment of the district court in this instance is to be affirmed. The majority opinion, however, is too narrow with respect to the availability of post-conviction relief.
A part of Morgan’s claim in the district court, which he also argued in this court, is that given the facts elicited as a basis for his plea of guilty, he should have been charged with a violation of § 31-11-102, W.S.1977 (June 1983 Replacement), a misdemeanor, instead of a violation of § 6-3-402(a)(c)(i), W.S.1977 (June 1983 Replacement), a felony. The misdemeanor would have been within the exclusive jurisdiction of the County Court of Natrona County, while felony jurisdiction is properly in the district court.
Lack of jurisdiction is a classic basis for collateral attack and should be a ground for relief under our post-conviction statutes, § 7-14-101 through § 7-14-108, W.S. 1977. Absence of jurisdiction must deprive a defendant of his constitutional right to due process of law. Morgan’s difficulty, however, is that factually the record does not support his position. An examination of the transcript of the arraignment proceedings, even if arguably ambiguous, demonstrates that it supports a factual determination by the district court that Morgan did plead guilty to and did admit all of the elements of the felony. Once that factual determination was made the district court properly denied post-conviction relief. On this basis I agree to affirm the case.
ROSE, J., joins in this opinion.