Summary 2006 WY 5

Summary of Decision issued January 10, 2006

[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: Monroe v. State

Citation: 2006 WY 5

Docket Number: 04-105

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

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Kenneth Koski, Public Defender; Donna D. Domonkos, Appellate Counsel; and Ryan R. Roden, Senior Assistant Public Defender.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; Paul S. Rehurek, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; David Delicath, Senior Assistant Attorney General.

Date of Decision: January 10, 2006

Issues: Whether the district court erred in denying the motion to suppress Appellant’s statement, violating his rights under the United States Constitution and Article 1, § 11 of the Wyoming Constitution. Whether Appellant’s Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right to be present at every critical stage of the criminal proceedings against him was violated when he was not allowed to attend his own competency hearing.

Holdings: When reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, the Court does not disturb the findings of factual issues unless they are clearly erroneous. The evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the district court’s determination. Issues of law are reviewed de novo. The motion to suppress hearing was relatively limited in scope. After a review of the interrogation, the district court took the matter under advisement and issued a decision letter. The district court concluded that the phrase, “Are you going to get me a good attorney?” was not an unequivocal request for counsel under the circumstances. The Court agreed and stated that the district court’s finding that Appellant had not unequivocally invoked his right to counsel was not clearly erroneous. In keeping with their express adoption of the Davis v. United States rationale, the Court also stated that if Appellant’s request was equivocal, it was not sufficient to prevent further questioning.
The question of whether a defendant has the right to be present at a specific phase of the criminal proceeding is an issue of law which is reviewed de novo. The district court granted Appellant’s motion for a competency evaluation. It was conducted and a report prepared. Appellant was not present at the competency hearing and defense counsel did not seek a continuance. The physician’s opinion was not contested and it supported a finding that the Appellant was competent to proceed. Based upon the contents of the report and the lack of objection to the report, the district court was authorized by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-11-303(f) to enter a finding of competency to proceed without holding a hearing. No actual hearing took place, so the right to attend did not arise. The Court found no error in the procedure utilized by the court nor in its determination that Appellant was fit to proceed.

The district court's judgment is affirmed.

J. Burke delivered the opinion for the court.

Link to case: http://tinyurl.com/dqrx9 .