Summary 2007 WY 33

Summary of Decision issued February 28, 2007

[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 with 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: Poole v. State

Citation: 2007 WY 33

Docket Number: 05-209, 05-210

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

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

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; Paul Rehurek, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Leda M. Pojman, Assistant Attorney General.

Issues: Whether the district court erred when it accepted Appellant’s guilty plea without an adequate factual basis. Whether Appellant’s guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary due to ineffective assistance of counsel.

Facts/Discussion: Appellant pled guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm and one count of reckless endangerment. On appeal, Appellant challenged only the validity of his guilty plea on the firearm possession charge.
Factual Basis: Rule 11(f) of the Wyoming Rules of Criminal Procedure states that a trial court should not enter a judgment upon a guilty plea without ensuring that there is a factual basis for the plea so as to prevent a defendant from being misled into a waiver of substantial rights. Before accepting the guilty plea, the court must determine if the defendant’s acts fell within the conduct prohibited by law and at the time of the plea, the defendant understood his conduct was criminal. By its plain language, § 6-8-102 required proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was previously convicted of a violent felony which has not been pardoned and the defendant thereafter knowingly possessed a firearm. The only mens rea requirement for a conviction is knowledge that the instrument possessed is a firearm. The State is not required to prove, nor is the court required to find, that a defendant have such knowledge. It is undisputed that the factual basis provided by Appellant and the State adequately supported the district court’s findings that Appellant knowingly possessed a firearm and that he was a convicted felon who had not been pardoned. The Court held the requirement of Rule 11(f) was satisfied and the district court did not err by accepting Appellant’s guilty plea.
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: To warrant a reversal on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Appellant must demonstrate that in light of the circumstances, counsel failed to render such assistance as would have been offered by a reasonably competent attorney and that counsel’s deficiency prejudiced the defense of the case. Appellant’s argument was premised on his misunderstanding of the elements of § 6-8-102. He faulted his attorney for not knowing that he had a viable defense to the firearm charge because he believed that he had been pardoned and was therefore not a convicted felon when he possessed a firearm. The Court had already ruled that Appellant’s ignorance of his status as a convicted felon was not a defense. Therefore, counsel’s assistance was not constitutionally ineffective as claimed.

Holding: There is no requirement that a defendant have knowledge of his status as a convicted felon in order to be convicted as a felon in possession of a firearm under § 6-8-102. The conviction on the firearm charge in 05-209 was affirmed. The conviction for reckless endangering in 05-210 was summarily affirmed because Appellant did not present any argument challenging that conviction.

Affirmed.

J. Golden delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/yrc28m .