Summary 2007 WY 55

Summary of Decision issued April 6, 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: Wilson v. State

Citation: 2007 WY 55

Docket Number: 06-16

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

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Kenneth M. Koski, State Public Defender; Donna D. Domonkos, Appellate Counsel; and Tina N. Kerin, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel. Argument by Ms. Kerin.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; Paul Rehurek, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Mackenzie Williams, Student Intern. Argument by Mr. Williams.

Issues: Whether the district court erred in accepting the Appellant’s guilty pleas without first establishing his mental competency. Whether the district court improperly interfered with the Appellant’s right to allocution.

Facts/Discussion: Appellant entered into a plea agreement under which he pled guilty to two counts of attempted manslaughter.
Establish mental competency: The standard for mental competency of a defendant to proceed in a criminal case is set forth in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-11-302. The requirement that competency be established is a matter of law that is reviewed de novo. Appellant contended that the district court violated Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-11-303(f) by not making an on the record specific finding of competency to proceed and that under § 7-11-303(a), the district court should have suspended proceedings on its own motion given the obvious evidence Appellant was not fit to proceed. The Court stated the record revealed Appellant had been evaluated by two mental health professionals and two attorneys who all reported Appellant did not suffer from a mental illness or deficiency that caused him to be incompetent to proceed. The district court held a hearing for the purpose of allowing counsel to stipulate that conclusion for the record. The Court stated it might have been better practice for the district court to have actually stated on the record that he found Appellant competent to proceed. However, it was the practical effect of the hearing and the court’s follow-up comment. In addition, the district court was presented with no evidence of a change in Appellant’s mental condition that would have required another evaluation.
Right to allocution: Appellant relied on a statement from Harvey v. State for the proposition that courts “do not prescribe limits on what the defendant can or cannot say during allocution.” The Court observed the statement was taken out of context and did not apply to the facts of the instant case. A trial judge always has the inherent authority to exercise reasonable control over the presentation of evidence, and that authority extends to the authority to limit allocution. The district court did not cut off allocution until Appellant had described at length the family circumstances that resulted in commission of the crimes, and not until defense counsel interjected that Appellant’s statements were being made against his advice.

Holding: Under the circumstances of the case, the district court did not err in accepting Appellant’s guilty pleas without having first made an explicit finding on the record that Appellant was competent to proceed. Neither did they err in placing reasonable limitations upon Appellant’s lengthy allocution.

Affirmed.

C.J. Voigt delivered the decision.

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