Court Opinion

ID: 9786666
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 00:00:18.589201+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:47.358028
License: Public Domain

VOIGT, Chief Justice,
specially concurring.
[124] I coneur in the result reached by the majority. I write separately ouly to emphasize the inappropriate attempted use in this case of the conditional plea concept provided in W.R.Cz.P. 11(a)(2). The Rule is set out in full in the majority opinion and need not be repeated here. Suffice it to say that the rule specifically is limited to the situation where a defendant "reservies] in writing the right, on appeal from the judgment, to seek review of the adverse determination of any specified pretrial motion." There was no such "adverse determination of any specified pretrial motion" because there was no such pretrial motion. Beyond that, the appellant is not seeking review of a determination of law made by the district court in a motion hearing. Rather, he is seeking a review of the sufficiency of the evidence presented at the trial in the first case (S-09-0076) as to one element of the charged crimes-whether he was in a position of authority over the victims-in challenging the charges in the second case (§S-09-0077). In accepting the appellant's nolo contendere pleas, the reserved question was described to the district court as "reserving the right to appeal specifically the issue that was argued at the end of the State's case in the first case; and that is specifically whether there was evidence that supported a conviction, or supported at least going to a trier of fact as to the position of authority."
[125] I agree with the majority that these circumstances do not present a situation where the appellant should be allowed to withdraw his pleas under W.R.Cr.P. 11(a)(2). The majority's resolution of the substantive issue answers the question the appellant appealed in the first case and attempted to reserve for appeal in the second case. He has had his day in court.