Summary 2007 WY 118

Summary of Decision issued July 31, 2007

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses "Universal Citation" and was given an "official" citation when issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will note that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation, the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion should include the reporter page number. If you need assistance, 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: Meyers v. State

Citation: 2007 WY 118

Docket Number: 05-284

Appeal from the District Court of Carbon County, the Honorable Wade E. Waldrip, Judge

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

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; Paul S. Rehurek, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; James Michael Causey, Assistant Attorney General.

Issue: Whether the District Court erred in denying Meyers’ post-sentence “Motion to Withdraw No Contest Plea” without a hearing and should his claim also be rejected as res judicata.

Facts/Discussion: Meyers sought to withdraw his nolo contendere plea after the district court sentenced him for attempted voluntary manslaughter. The district court denied Meyers’ motion without a hearing. The Court noted that most of the facts were stated in their decision on Meyers’ first appeal from 2005.
Withdrawal of Plea: Rule 32(d), W.R.Cr.P., states that after a criminal defendant who pleads nolo contendere is sentenced, such plea may be set aside only to correct manifest injustice. The district court has discretion in deciding whether or not manifest injustice exists. It does not specify that a district court must hold a hearing and the Court has adopted a two-part test formerly used by the federal courts in determining whether or not to allow the withdrawal of a plea: if the defendant alleges facts which if true, would entitle him to relief and the trial court can deny a hearing if the defendant’s allegations are contradicted by the record, are inherently unreliable or are merely conclusions rather than statements of fact.
Meyers’ contention that he was denied a psychological evaluation was directly contradicted by the record. A hearing on his claims would not have presented any plausible basis for concluding that manifest injustice would result if withdrawal was not permitted.
Res Judicata: It is a longstanding rule that issues which could have been raised in an earlier proceeding are foreclosed from subsequent consideration. Meyers appealed his case long before he moved to withdraw his plea. He could have claimed that his plea was involuntary but did not.

Holding: The district court properly decided Meyers’ motion to withdraw plea without a hearing. Meyers should have made his claim that his plea was involuntary in his original appeal. Res judicata prevents him from making that claim now. The action of the district court is affirmed on each of these bases.

Affirmed.

Kautz, District Judge delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/26nest .