Summary 2006 WY 20

Summary of Decision issued February 13, 2006

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it is issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note when you look at the opinion 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: Martinez v. State

Citation: 2006 WY 20

Docket Number: 04-238

Appeal from the District Court of Natrona County, Honorable Scott W. Skavdahl, Judge

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Kenneth M. Koski, State Public Defender; Donna D. Domonkos, Appellate Counsel; and Megan Hayes, Special Assistant Public Defender.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Patrick J. Crank, Wyoming Attorney General; Paul S. Rehurek, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and James Michael Causey, Assistant Attorney General.

Date of Decision: February 13, 2006

Issues: Whether the State violated the appellant’s constitutional rights by threatening or coercing a potential defense witness. Whether appellant’s trial counsel were ineffective. Whether the constitutionality of the appellant’s sentence was raised properly in the district court. Whether the appellant was sentenced based on inaccurate information.

Holdings: The Court reviewed the record for the constitutional complaint by applying the de novo standard and concluded that the detectives’ response in the instant case did not amount to the “highly intimidating” statements, “excessive in number and badgering in tone or phrasing”, and “obviously threatening” that past cases have identified as so coercive as to raise constitutional concerns. The nexus between the government’s alleged conduct and the loss of material and favorable testimony was also tenuous. The record does not indicate that the witness was unwilling to testify or that he was no longer available to the defense due to improper governmental conduct.
The question of ineffective counsel requires the appellant to meet the two prong standard that counsel’s performance was deficient and that prejudice resulted. The Court has stated that the appellant must demonstrate the existence of a reasonable possibility that, absent that deficiency, the result of the proceedings would have been different. The Court reviewed the instances appellant discussed regarding victim buttons worn by the victim’s family, out-of-court contact with jurors, a sleeping juror and autopsy photographs. The Court did not find that the appellant satisfied his burden with respect to any of the above stated issues.
The question of the constitutionality of sentencing was not “specifically phrased and completely argued” in district court. Merely stating that the statute is unconstitutional because it violated the appellant’s “due process rights” is too conclusory an assertion to permit the Court’s review in the instant case. Appellant disputed a passage in the presentence investigation report as violating his due process right to be sentenced only on accurate information. The Court noted that other information in the presentence investigation report supported the passage to which he objected. The district court provided appellant with an opportunity to dispute the passage at issue during the sentencing hearing. Upon review of the record the Court could not find that the district court sentenced the appellant on unreliable, undocumented or inaccurate information.

The decree of the district court was affirmed.

J. Voigt delivered the opinion for the court.

Link to the case: http://tinyurl.com/862fo .