Summary 2007 WY 144

Summary of Decision issued September 17, 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: Seteren v. State

Citation: 2007 WY 144

Docket Number: 06-199

Appeal from the District Court of Sheridan County, the Honorable John C. Brackley, Judge

Representing Appellant (Defendant): D. Terry Rogers, Interim State Public Defender; Donna D. Domonkos, Appellate Counsel.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney General; and D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General.

Issues: Whether the district court erred in sentencing Appellant for the felony of having four DUI convictions within five years, given that the earliest of those convictions occurred on May 24, 2001 and that he entered a guilty plea to the most recent charge on April 18, 2006. Whether Appellant was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial under the facts of this case.

Facts/Discussion: Appellant entered a guilty plea to felony level driving under the influence of alcohol. Wyo. Stat. Ann § 31-5-233 (b)(i) and (e). The facts are not contested.
Standard of Review: The Court deemed the language of the governing statute to be plain and unambiguous. The standard of review for constitutional questions is de novo. The Court applies the same facts to the same standards as did the district court.
The Five-Year Period: The Court stated that based on Appellant’s testimony and the materials in the record on appeal, appellant was convicted of DUI four times in the course of five years and he was properly sentenced for that crime. The Court noted the Legislature might wish to consider altering the focus of the statute so that the crime would be complete once a fourth conviction was achieved so long as all four incidents of conduct occurred within a five-year period.
Speedy Trial: Appellant conceded that Wyoming’s speedy trial rule was not violated by the circumstances of the case. The Court must also apply the four-part test articulated in Barker v. Wingo including: the length of the delay; the reason for the delay; the defendant’s assertion of the right; and the prejudice to the defendant. The speedy trial clock begins to run upon arrest or when charges are filed. The speedy trial guarantee is no longer applicable once charges are dismissed. The speedy trial clock resumes running when a second charge is filed that is closely related to the first charge. The Court reviewed the record and stated the delay was not extraordinary and it appeared Appellant acquiesced in the delay until he thought the speedy trial clock had run. The reasons appeared to be the trial court’s crowded docket combined with some inattention to speedy trial concerns.

Holding: The district court did not err in sentencing Appellant as it did because he had been convicted of DUI four times in the previous five years. Appellant’s constitutional rights to a speedy trial were not violated. The judgment and sentence of the district court are affirmed.

Affirmed.

J. Hill delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/34tb96 .