Summary 2006 WY 26

Summary of Decision issued March 14, 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: Peden v. State

Citation: 2006 WY 26

Docket Number: 05-17

Appeal from the District Court of Campbell County, Honorable Dan R. Price II, Judge

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Kenneth M. Koski, State Public Defender; Donna D. Domonkos, Appellate Counsel; and Tina N. Kerin, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel.

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

Date of Decision: March 14, 2006

Issue: Whether the district court abused its discretion when it sentenced the Appellant.

Holding: Sentencing decisions are normally within the discretion of the trial court. The Appellant did not offer any cogent argument that the manner in which the testimony was presented to the district court, or the manner in which the district court addressed the issues raised during the sentencing hearing constituted “procedural conduct prejudicial to him”. The Court concluded the Appellant did not demonstrate the testimony in question was so lacking in reliability that it implicated the Appellant’s right to due process. After a review of the record, the Court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it sentenced the Appellant.

The decree of the district court was affirmed.

J. Voigt delivered the opinion of the Court.

Link to the case: http://tinyurl.com/h7qdp .