Summary 2006 WY 135

Summary of Decision issued October 24, 2006

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was 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.]

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

Case Name: Floyd v. State

Citation: 2006 WY 135

Docket Number: 04-168 & 04-169

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, the Honorable E. James Burke, Judge

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Tonya A. Morse of Cheyenne, Wyoming.

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

Issue: Appellant: Whether Appellant was denied his constitutional right to a fair trial due to ineffective assistance of counsel. Whether Appellant’s guilty pleas were involuntary due to ineffective assistance of counsel. State: Whether Appellant’s conditional [nolo contendre] plea properly before the Court pursuant to W.R.Cr.P. 11(a)(2), and if the Court considers the claim, was he denied his constitutional right to a fair trial due to ineffective assistance of his original trial counsel. Whether Appellant’s pleas were given voluntarily.

Holding: Appellant entered a plea of nolo contendre as provided for in W.R.Cr.P. 11(a)(1)(A) to a charge of escape from official detention in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-5-206(a)(i). Appellant’s plea agreement provided that he could appeal this conviction “solely on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel.” While a resident of Frontier Correctional Services, Appellant returned late from work release. He failed a breath test for alcohol and left the facility when asked to give a urine sample. He was apprehended two days later in Washington State driving a car that had been reported stolen. He was charged with felony larceny and escape from official detention. He was sentenced to serve not less than 42 months, nor more than 60 months on the larceny charge. He was sentenced to serve not less than 36 months nor more than 60 months on the escape charge, consecutive to the larceny sentence. That sentence was suspended with Appellant serving 4 years on probation consecutive to the larceny sentence instead. The Court initially dismissed the appeals but after considering a petition for reinstatement, converted the appeals to writs of review.
The State asserted the Court should not consider Appellant’s contention that his counsel was ineffective because that issue was not preserved as required by W.R.Cr. P. 11(a)(2). The Court concluded that Rule 11(a)(2) had no application in the instant case.
Standard of Review: In reviewing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, the Court’s paramount consideration is whether in light of all the circumstances, trial counsels’ acts or omissions were outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance.
Where a defendant has entered a guilty plea, he may challenge his subsequent conviction on appeal only with respect to matters which affect the voluntariness of his plea or the subject-matter jurisdiction of the trial court. The Hill Court determined that a prejudice analysis was required in the context of withdrawing a guilty plea in which the defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. As the Court suggested in Rutti, if the Court determines that the outcome of trial would not have been more advantageous than the benefits of the plea bargain, then the Court need not evaluate trial counsels’ performance in detail. The Court stated that the circumstances in Rutti were the exact same circumstances in the instant case. The Court reviewed the record and concluded that Appellant failed to demonstrate that he suffered prejudice from any shortcomings in counsels’ performance.

Affirmed judgment and sentence.

J. Hill delivered the order for the court.

Link to the case: http://tinyurl.com/ylb3ry .