Summary 2007 WY 160

Summary of Decision issued October 11, 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: Holzheuser v. State

Citation: 2007 WY 160

Docket Number: 06-124

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

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

Representing Appellees (Plaintiff): Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Dana J. Lent, Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Ms. Lent.

Issues: Whether the trial court erred in denying Appellant’s motion to suppress as the affidavit executed in support of the search warrant was inadequate to establish probable cause to search. Whether there was insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for possessing a controlled substance precursor with intent to engage in a clandestine laboratory operation or a conviction for conspiracy to engage in a clandestine laboratory operation because the only evidence on these counts was hearsay.

Facts/Discussion: Appellant was tried before a jury and convicted of: (1) possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver; (2) possession of a list of I or II controlled substance precursor with the intent to engage in a clandestine laboratory operation; and (3) conspiring with another to engage in a clandestine laboratory operation.
Standard of Review (Sufficiency of the Affidavit): The Court’s duty on review is simply to ensure that the warrant-issuing judicial officer had a substantial basis for concluding probable cause existed.
The Warrant-Issuing Officer’s Standard for Determining Probable Cause: The measure is that the circumstances set forth in the affidavit must amount to more than a mere suspicion yet need not arise to the level of prima facie evidence of guilt. The judicial officer who is presented with an application for a search warrant supported by an affidavit applies a “totality of the circumstances” analysis in making an independent judgment whether probable cause exists for the issuance of the warrant.
The affidavit was quite short. The district court’s analysis was brief as well, reflecting the parties’ lack of development of the issue below. The Court agreed with the conclusion of the issuing magistrate and that of the district court that there was sufficient evidence.
Standard of Review (Sufficiency of the Evidence): The Court must determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Evidence – Possession of Precursors: Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 35-7-1059 (2003) was in effect at the time Appellant committed his crimes. The jury was instructed that the items found were included on List I and II as controlled substance precursors. The testimony at trial was clear that all items were found in a box that Appellant had access to as it was found in the apartment in which he resided. Appellant’s contention that there was insufficient evidence depended on the Court’s holding in Longstreth. The Court concluded the case did not directly apply to the instant case. The testimony was uncontradicted that the witness and Appellant lived in the apartment and as a matter of circumstance, it was a fair inference that the precursors belonged to both Appellant and the witness.
The Evidence – Conspiracy: The Court stated it was unclear that the State attempted to prove a conspiracy. They reviewed the record and concluded the evidence was not sufficient to sustain the conviction for conspiracy.

Holding: Appellant’s conviction for possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver and his conviction for possess of a list I or List II precursor with intent to engage in a clandestine laboratory are affirmed. The conviction of conspiracy to engage in a clandestine laboratory is reversed. The case is remanded to the district court with directions to dismiss Count IV of the information and to resentence Appellant accordingly.

Affirmed, reversed and remanded for resentencing.

J. Hill delivered the opinion.

Link http://tinyurl.com/3byscq .