Summary 2006 WY 92

[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: Miller v. State

Citation: 2006 WY 92

Docket Number: 05-98, 99

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, Honorable Denise Nau, Judge

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

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

Date of Decision: July 28, 2006

Issues: Whether the trial court properly accepted Appellant's no contest pleas and whether it abused its discretion in later refusing to allow Appellant to withdraw the pleas.

Holdings: It is for the district court to resolve any conflicts in the evidence. In this instance, the district court obviously did not believe Appellant's protestations that he entered his pleas involuntarily. The district court's determination is further supported by what occurred at the change of plea hearing. An independent review of the record reveals that the district court complied with the requirements of W.R.Crim.P. 11. The district court comprehensively discussed with Appellant the nature and consequences of the no contest pleas, including the potential penalties associated with those pleas, and the rights he would be relinquishing if the court accepted the pleas. The record is clear that Appellant understood the court's advisements and that he entered his pleas with full awareness of the consequences. Appellant explicitly acknowledged that his pleas were voluntary and not the product of coercion, promises or improper inducements. Taking all of the testimony at the hearing into account, as well as what transpired at the change of plea hearing, denying Appellant's motion to withdraw his pleas was a sound exercise of the district court's discretion. It is evident from the record that the district court properly accepted Appellant's pleas in the first instance and that Appellant failed to demonstrate a fair and just reason for withdrawing his pleas. There is no reason to overturn the district court's decision denying Appellant's motion to withdraw his pleas. Affirmed.

J. Golden delivered the opinion for the court.