Summary 2006 WY 84

[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: Amin v. State

Citation: 2006 WY 84

Docket Number: 05-259

Appeal from the District Court of Carbon County, Honorable Wade E. Waldrip, Judge

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Abdullah Kru Amin, Pro Se.

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: July 18, 2006

Issues: Whether Appellant in under an illegal sentence. Whether Appellant's sentences constitute a violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Unites States Constitution and/or the Wyoming Constitution. Whether the habitual criminal statute is unconstitutional. Whether the Appellant has been denied due process of law. Whether the sentences imposed on Appellant constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Appellant also asks this Court to appoint counsel for him in this appeal.

Holdings: What Appellant seeks to do in these proceedings is to generally challenge convictions and sentences that have previously been affirmed (See: Amin v. State, 811 P.2d 255). Thus, the claims raised in the present appeal are barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Appellant has also failed to provide any cogent argument or pertinent authority for the proposition that counsel should be appointed for him for this appeal.

Appellant has exhausted all of his state remedies with respect to the convictions at issue in this matter. The district court is authorized to decline to permit the filing of any further papers from Appellant that relate to these convictions, unless Appellant has first obtained the consent of the district court for such a filing. Furthermore, the clerk of the Supreme Court is authorized to decline to file any papers submitted by Appellant that relate to these matters without having first obtained the consent of the Court for such a filing.

The order of the district court is affirmed in all respects. Appellant is considered by this Court to have exhausted his state remedies with respect to the matters at issue in this appeal. Appellant is prohibited from making any further filings with respect to these matters in either the district court or this Court, except under the circumstances outlined above.

J. Hill delivered the opinion for the court.