Summary 2007 WY 150

Summary of Decision issued September 19, 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: Heywood v. State

Citation: 2007 WY 150

Docket Number: 06-193

Appeal from the District Court of Albany County, the Honorable Jeffrey A. Donnell, Judge

Representing Appellant (Defendant): D. Terry Rogers, Interim State Public Defender; Donna D. Domonkos, Appellate Counsel; and David E. Westling, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel.

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

Issue: Whether there was reversible error where Appellant claims that one of the prosecutors, who argued at his sentencing for various drug charges, represented Appellant nearly ten years earlier when he was charged with driving without insurance, where Appellant did not object to the prosecutor’s appearance at sentencing and where the only evidence of the earlier presentation is a single document attached to Appellant’s brief and not included in the official record.
Facts/Discussion: Appellant claims reversible error occurred when a prosecutor who Appellant claims represented him when he was charged with driving without insurance ten years earlier, argued for the State at his sentencing for various drug charges.
Appellant bears the burden of bringing to the reviewing court a sufficient record. The Court would not consider the uncertified document attached to Appellant’s brief in the case. No evidence pertaining to the error appeared in the record, so Appellant’s argument was unsupported by competent evidence.

Holding: Appellant’s argument that he had a previous attorney-client relationship with the prosecutor and that therefore the prosecutor should have been barred from arguing at his sentencing was not supported by the record.

Affirmed.

C.J. Voigt delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/ywjn3g .