Summary 2007 WY 52

Summary of Decision issued March 23, 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: Doolittle v. State

Citation: 2007 WY 52

Docket Number: 05-177 and 06-86

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, the Honorable Edward Grant, Judge

Representing Appellant (Defendant) for case 05-177: Kenneth M. Koski, State Public Defender; and Donna D. Domonkos, Appellate Counsel. Argument by Ms. Domonkos.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff) for case 05-177: Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; Paul S. Rehurek, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and David J. Willms, Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Mr. Willms.

Representing Appellant for case 06-86: Christopher A. Doolittle, pro se.

Representing Appellee for case 06-86: Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; Paul S. 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 denied Appellant’s motion to suppress. Whether the district court erred because it did not award credit for time served.

Facts/Discussion: Appellant was suspected of dealing methamphetamine. Pursuant to a sting operation, an informant asked Appellant to meet at a nightclub near the Wyoming/Colorado border. When Appellant arrived he crossed into Wyoming but parked his vehicle on the Colorado side of the border. Wyoming law enforcement officers immediately arrested him for conspiracy to deliver methamphetamine. A search of his vehicle led to the discovery of drugs, drug dealing paraphernalia and several weapons. Appellant filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained during the search, claiming the officers were outside of their jurisdiction to arrest him or alternatively, that they lacked probable cause. The district court denied the motion. Subsequently, Appellant entered a conditional guilty plea to one count of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver and one count of felony possession of a controlled substance. In these two consolidated appeals, he contends the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress and by failing to award him credit for time served.
Standard of Review: The Court does not interfere with a district court’s finding of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. The determination of whether a sentence is illegal is a question of law which the Court reviews de novo.
Extraterritorial Arrest: The validity of a warrantless arrest is determined by applying the law of the state in which the arrest occurred. The applicable Colorado statute is Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-106. The Court reviewed the record and found no error with the district court’s determination that probable cause existed for the warrantless arrest of Appellant. Appellant contends the arrest outside of the jurisdiction requires the suppression of all evidence obtained as a result of the arrest. Appellant relied on the general rule that officers are not permitted to make warrantless arrests absent statutorial authority. Appellant recognized fresh pursuit as an exception to the general rule but claimed the detectives were not in fresh pursuit. The Court was not analyzing the claim under the common law doctrine of fresh pursuit. Colorado has enlarged upon the common law pursuant to its codification of Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann § 16-3-104(1)(c). An arrest in Colorado is evaluated by considering three criteria: (1) the police must act without unnecessary delay; (2) the pursuit must be continuous and uninterrupted, but there need not be continuous surveillance of the suspect or uninterrupted knowledge of his whereabouts; and (3) the temporal relationship between the commission of the offense, the commencement of the pursuit and the apprehension of the suspect – the greater the length of time, the less likely the police action constituted fresh pursuit. There is no requirement the suspect recognize he is being pursued. There is also no requirement that an actual in-sight chase begin within the officer’s territorial jurisdiction. The facts of the instant case did not fit easily within the traditional sense of fresh pursuit. However, when evaluated under the criteria set forth under Colorado law, the Court did not find the arrest unlawful. Detectives immediately set up surveillance of the ongoing conspiracy. Appellant arrived as expected, drove into Wyoming and continued on a driveway that curved back across the Colorado border. The detectives followed the car and apprehended Appellant after he stepped out of the car. The act was without unnecessary delay and was continuous and uninterrupted. Appellant was apprehended as close to the time the crime was committed as was reasonable under the circumstances. The Court found the arrest lawful.
Credit for Time Served: In both appeals, Appellant contended the district court erred by denying him credit for his presentence incarceration. The Court has stated that a defendant is entitled to credit for time spent in presentence confinement against both the minimum and maximum sentence if the defendant was unable to post bond for the offense of which he was convicted. The Court reviewed the discussion of the imposition of Appellant’s sentence. The written judgment and sentence omitted discussion regarding credit for presentence incarceration even though required to do so pursuant to W.R.Cr.P. 32(c)(2)(E) and (F). Because the written sentencing order failed to comply with Wyoming rules, Appellant is entitled to a limited remand for a determination of credit unless the Court is able to fashion a correct award from the record. The Court stated the district court’s oral pronouncement was ambiguous and the written judgment and sentence lacked any findings which would have provided clarification. As a matter of law, the Court was unable to determine the sentence intended to be imposed by the district court.

Holding: The Court affirmed the district court’s decision to deny Appellant’s motion to suppress. The written judgment and sentence did not comply with the requirements of W.R.Cr.P. 32(c)(2)(E) and (F) because it lacked any specific findings concerning Appellant’s presentence incarceration. The case was remanded to the district court for issuance of a corrected sentence consistent with the opinion.

Affirmed in part and remanded in part.

J. Burke delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/2rjdmh .