Court Opinion

ID: 9792446
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:29:41.057736+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:42.939468
License: Public Domain

GOLDEN, Justice.
Appellant Sandra Gezzi appeals from a judgment and sentence of the district court which sentenced her to three years of probation. She pled guilty to two counts of uttering forged checks in violation of W.S. 6 — 3—602(a)(iii) (June 1988 Repl.). The issues raised in this appeal address the constitutionality of W.S. 7-13-301 (June 1987 *486Repl.). All of the issues raised are disposed of by the court’s opinion in Billis v. State, etc., No. 88-250, 800 P.2d 401 (Wyo. Oct. 5, 1990). Therefore, we affirm the district court’s judgment and sentence.
Gezzi contends for these propositions:
I. Does the prosecutorial veto contained in § 7-13-301 (W.S.1977) violate the constitutional mandate of separation of powers?
II. Was the prosecutorial veto provision of § 7-13-301 (W.S.1977) unconstitutionally enacted?
III. Did the prosecutor’s refusal to consent to first offender treatment for appellant violate her rights to due process?
IV. Did the prosecutor's arbitrary and capricious refusal to consent to sentencing pursuant to § 7-13-301 violate article 1, § 2 and article 1, § 7 of the Wyoming Constitution?
We reject the first issue, violation of separation of powers, for the reasons discussed in Billis, at 412-427. The second issue, concerning enactment of the statute, is disposed of in Billis, at 427-433.
As to the third issue, Gezzi has made no individual argument, but, rather, incorporated by reference materials from briefs in other cases which have now been decided in Billis. Although we do not usually permit such matters to be incorporated by reference, we have made an exception here. See Cambio v. State, No. 89-169, 800 P.2d 482 (Wyo. Oct. 5, 1990). Since Gezzi made no individual argument, and since we have decided in Billis that the statute does not operate in such a manner as to offend the constitutional rights of defendants, we can only conclude that Gez-zi’s due process rights were not offended in any manner by W.S. 7-13-301.
Finally, Gezzi claims that the prosecutor’s decision was arbitrary and capricious. We held in Billis that the prosecutor’s control of a prosecution is committed to his sound discretion and we will not interfere with the exercise of that discretion unless it is based on suspect factors such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification. Billis, at 465. This record raises no question in that regard.
The judgment and sentence of the district court is affirmed.
MACY, J., files a concurring opinion.
URBIGKIT, C.J., files a dissenting opinion.