Summary 2007 WY 197

Summary of Decision issued December 13, 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: Rion v. State

Citation: 2007 WY 197

Docket Number: 06-178, 179

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

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Edward J. Battitori of Meek & Battitori, Baxter Springs, Kansas; and Raymond D. Macchia of Macchia & Associates, LLC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

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

Facts/Discussion: Appellant appeals from his convictions for arson and felony property destruction on the ground that his trial counsel was ineffective.
Standard of Review: In reviewing the decision of the district court after remand, the Court defers to the district court’s findings of facts unless they are clearly erroneous, but they conduct a de novo review of the conclusions of law including the question of whether counsel’s conduct was deficient.

Holding: The Court stated Appellant’s brief was a recitation of the allegations with no analysis of either the allegedly deficient conduct or any prejudice that might have resulted. Therefore, they affirmed the determinations of the district court and Appellant’s convictions.

Affirmed.

C.J. Voigt delivered the opinion.

J. Hill, concurring, joined by J. Kite: In this appeal, Appellant contends that the validity of his convictions was undermined by the substandard performance of his attorney at trial. The majority opinion opted to “summarily affirm” based upon appellate counsel’s substandard performance. J. Hill stated that in his view the record showed that the district court’s findings were not clearly erroneous and its conclusion that trial counsel was not ineffective as a matter of law was sound.
If he were to agree with the majority’s characterization of appellate counsel’s performance, he would take the view that the Court must identify that performance as ineffective assistance of appellate counsel and order new briefing in the case.
Based on the briefs, the transcript of Appellant’s trial and the Calene hearing transcript, J. Hill would conclude that trial counsel was not ineffective and hence the judgment and sentence of the district court should be affirmed.

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