Summary 2006 WY 47

Summary of Decision issued April 19, 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. Please 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 using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library for assistance.]

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

Case Name: Follett v. State

Citation: 2006 WY 47

Docket Number: 04-133, 05-63

Appeals from the District Court of Sweetwater County, the Honorable Nena James, Judge.

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Mike Cornia, Evanston, Wyoming.

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

Date of Decision: April 19, 2006

Issues: Whether the court properly accepted appellant’s guilty plea and whether it abused its discretion in denying appellant’s subsequent motion to withdraw the plea after sentencing.

Holdings: Appellant appeals his sentence as a result of pleading guilty in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 6-2-304(a)(i) and 6-2-306(a)(iii). He is also appealing his motion to withdraw his guilty plea which was denied by the district court.
Competency Procedures: Appellant was charged with one count of third degree sexual assault. He filed a motion for a mental evaluation and stay of the proceedings. The circuit court granted the defense motion. A mental health professional evaluated Appellant and indicated in her report that she had no concerns about Appellant standing trial. The report also concluded Appellant did not meet the criteria for a defense of not guilty on the basis of mental defect because he admitted he knew what he was doing was wrong when he committed the offense. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-11-301 et. seq. sets forth the requirements for determining whether a criminal defendant is competent to stand trial. The content of the standard of competency is a question of law which the Court reviews de novo. The substantial evidence standard of review governs the determination of a defendant’s competency as fairly supported by the record.
At his arraignment, Appellant entered pleas of not guilty, not guilty by reason of mental illness and not triable by reason of mental deficiency. Appellant and the State did not object to the report by the mental health professional nor did they request a second evaluation. Thus, the results of the first evaluation did not trigger additional obligations. The clear language of Wyo. Stat. Ann § 7-11-304(d) allowed the court to rely on the initial examination, so long as it did not deem another examination was necessary. It is good practice to make an express finding of competency but it is not erroneous to fail to do so. The Court stated that because Appellant underwent a mental evaluation and there was no indication his mental health changed after the evaluation, the case was substantively different from deShazer. The Court concluded the district court complied with the mental examination requirements set out in the statutes and Appellant’s due process rights were not violated.
Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea: W.R.Cr.P. 32(d) sets out the standards for withdrawal of a guilty plea. The standard for withdrawing a plea of guilty after sentencing requires the defendant to show “manifest injustice.” The party seeking to withdraw his plea bears the burden. The district court has discretion in determining whether a party has proved manifest injustice. As the United States Supreme Court decided in Godinez, the knowing and voluntary requirement for a guilty plea is distinct from a finding the defendant is competent. W.R.Cr.P. 11 sets forth the requirements which must be met to ensure a defendant’s guilty plea is voluntary and knowing and the district court must follow the dictates. The Court stated, after a review of the record, that the district court complied with the requirements of Rule 11. Therefore, Appellant’s contention was unfounded and the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied his motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

The Court affirmed in both appeals.

J. Kite delivered the opinion for the court.

Link to the case: http://tinyurl.com/jv7y8 .