Summary 2005 WY 163

Summary of Decision issued December 22, 2005

[SPECIAL NOTE: These opinions use the "Universal Citation." They were given "official" citations when they were issued. You should use these citations whenever you cite these opinions, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note when you look at the opinions that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation from this, or any future opinion using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library and we will provide any needed assistance]

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court

Case Name: Meyers v. State

Citation: 2005 WY 163

Docket Number: 04-223

Appeal from the District Court of Carbon County, Honorable Kenneth Stebner, Judge

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Ken Koski, Public Defender; Donna D. Domonkos, Appellate Counsel.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; Paul S. Rehurek, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Georgia Tibbets, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Matthew D. Obrecht, Student Intern.

Date of Decision: December 22, 2005

Issues: Whether double jeopardy prohibited the district court from entering a judgment and sentence against Appellant for voluntary manslaughter. Whether the district court abused its discretion when it allowed the victim to present to the court a written and oral victim impact statement.

Holdings: Claims alleging violations of a constitutional right are reviewed under the Court’s de novo standard of review. The double jeopardy provisions of both the U.S. Constitution and the Wyoming Constitution provide an accused three protections: 1) protection against a second prosecution for the same offense following an acquittal; 2) protection against a second prosecution for the same offense after a conviction; and 3) protection against multiple punishments for the same offense. Appellant failed to establish a violation of any of the protections. He urged an adoption of a rule of law, which would bar prosecution of a defendant following a trial where the jury is deadlocked on one count, but has reached a decision on the other count, where the count which has been decided and the retrial on the deadlocked count would merely result in a conviction for merged sentences. The district court denied Appellant’s motion to dismiss and the Court found no error in that decision. The Court stated that the Appellant waived all nonjurisdictional defenses when he entered a plea of nolo contendere.
Sentencing decisions are reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. Because Appellant failed to object during sentencing, the review was limited to a search for plain error. Appellant relies on Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-21-102(a) which relates to notice which a district attorney must provide to a crime victim of his opportunity to make a victim impact statement for inclusion in the presentence report. It does not limit a victim’s right to also make an oral statement at sentencing. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-2-103 appears to limit a crime victim to either the submission of a written statement for inclusion in the presentence report or an oral statement to the court. But, it also specifies that any failure to comply will not create a cause for appeal or reduction of sentence. A review of the record revealed that the district court focused primarily on Appellant’s extensive criminal record and the dangerous situation he created by his behavior. Nothing in the district court’s pronouncement supports Appellant’s contention that the court was unduly influenced by the victim’s statements. The Court found no prejudicial error in the sentencing process or abuse of discretion in the sentence imposed.

The district court's judgment is affirmed.

J. Burke delivered the opinion for the court.

Link to the case: http://tinyurl.com/9gxdt .