Summary 2007 WY 159

Summary of Decision issued October 10, 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: Merchant v. State

Citation: 2007 WY 159

Docket Number: 06-278

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, the Honorable Nicholas G. Kalokathis, Judge

Representing Appellant (Plaintiff): Robert T. Moxley of Robert T. Moxley, PC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellees (Defendants): Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Daniel M. Fetsco, Senior Assistant Attorney General.

Issues: Whether the district court and the Wyoming Department of Corrections (WDOC) properly interpreted Appellant’s sentences. Whether the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD) required that Appellant be returned to Colorado without processing into the WDOC. Whether Appellant was denied equal protection of law because he was not processed into the WDOC before his return to Colorado.

Facts/Discussion: The criminal matter forming the basis for this case was considered by the Court in Merchant v. State. Appellant was serving a prison sentence in Colorado in 1996 and was temporarily transferred to Wyoming pursuant to the IAD to stand trial on several outstanding Wyoming criminal charges. After a jury returned a guilty verdict on eleven counts, the district court consolidated the sentences. He was then returned to Colorado after the sentencing hearing and was not processed into the Wyoming correctional system. In 2003, Colorado paroled Appellant and he was transferred to the Wyoming State Penitentiary. The WDOC determined he was entitled to credit for the time he served in Colorado against his Wyoming sentences in successive order but was not entitled to “special good time”. Appellant filed an action in the district court challenging WDOC’s determination that his Colorado time should be credited against only one of his Wyoming sentences at a time and refusing to give him special good time credit or calendar him for parole while he was incarcerated in Colorado. The district court entered a Stipulated Judgment incorporating a prior summary judgment ruling in favor of the State. Although he had already been paroled in Wyoming, the district court held a bench trial on his claim that his equal protection rights had been violated because he was not tracked for special good time or calendared for parole while incarcerated in Colorado.
Standard of Review: The Court reviews the district court’s decision to grant a summary judgment de novo. After a bench trial the Court reviews the trial court’s conclusions of law de novo. The trial court’s findings are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard.
Consecutive or Concurrent Sentences: The Court concluded the district court correctly interpreted Appellant’s sentences. The sentencing court has discretion in determining whether the sentences will be served consecutively or concurrently. Applying the Colorado time concurrently with one Wyoming sentence at a time gives effect to both the concurrent and consecutive nature of Appellant’s Wyoming sentences. If the Court were to determine that Appellant’s Wyoming sentences were unclear or ambiguous, precedent (Pearson v. State) would require them to construe them as consecutive.
IAD Interpretation and Equal Protection Issues: Appellant argues the State treated him differently than other similarly situated inmates in violation of his constitutional right to equal protection of the law. Because Appellant has been paroled, the relief he requested is no longer necessary rendering his constitutional issue moot. The Court stated they recognize exceptions to the general rule that they dismiss moot controversies when it is an issue of great public importance. They agreed there was significant potential for the controversy to arise again and affect other Wyoming prisoners. Testimony at trial indicated that inmates brought to Wyoming pursuant to the IAD are not under the province of the WDOC. IAD inmates are not processed into the Wyoming correctional system to be tracked or calendared prior to being returned to the sending state. The clear language of Article V of the IAD established that the scope of the receiving state’s custody has been carefully limited and designed to be temporary in nature. Appellant’s argument would not serve the clear purposes of the IAD. Thus the Court concluded the State properly interpreted and applied the provisions of the IAD when it returned him without processing him into the Wyoming correctional system. Appellant was not similarly situated to other Wyoming inmates who were processed by the WDOC and then housed out of state and therefore was not entitled to be treated equally to Wyoming inmates.
The Court applied the rational basis test for determining Appellant’s equal protection claim because he did not allege he was a member of a suspect class nor did his claim involve a fundamental right. The district court ruled there was a rational basis for treating Appellant differently based on the trial evidence. The Court agreed the State’s actions were rationally related to legitimate state objectives. The Court distinguished In re Salinas and stated that Van Winkle v. New Jersey Dep’t of Corrections wasn’t applicable to the instant case.

Holding: The Court affirmed the district court’s ruling that Appellant’s Wyoming sentences were consecutive to one another and he was only entitled to credit for his Colorado incarceration against one Wyoming sentence at a time. The Court also concluded that Appellant’s equal protection rights were not violated when the State refused to give him the opportunity to earn “special good time” credit against the minimum terms of his Wyoming sentences or calendar him for parole while he was incarcerated in Colorado.

Affirmed.

J. Kite delivered the opinion.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/2kruq8 .