Summary 2009 WY 104

Summary of Decision issued August 21, 2009

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court

Case Name: Johnson v. State

Citation: 2009 WY 104

Docket Number: S-09-0029

Appeal from the District Court of Campbell County, Honorable John R. Perry, Judge

Representing Appellant (Plaintiffs): Kenneth DeCock of Plains Law Offices, LLP, Gillette, Wyoming

Representing Appellee (Defendant): Bruce A. Salzburg, Wyoming Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Leda M. Pojman, Senior Assistant Attorney General

Date of Decision: August 21, 2009

Appellant entered a conditional plea of guilty to conspiracy to deliver marijuana, reserving the right to challenge the denial of his motion to suppress. In this appeal, he challenges, the legality of the search of his residence under both the Wyoming and United States Constitutions.

Issues: Whether law enforcement’s entry into the Appellant’s residence a violation of the Appellant’s Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. Whether law enforcement’s entry into the Appellant’s residence a violation of the Appellant’s right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure as guaranteed by Article 1, § 4 of the Wyoming Constitution.

Holdings: The Court explicates its standard of review in every appeal that comes to it. The standard by which an action is reviewed drives the analysis and, ultimately, the final determination. The key word is “review.” Implicit in the term is that there are findings from a trial court to be reviewed. On the factual side, fact-finding is a basic responsibility of a trial court. Trial courts are therefore required by W.R.Cr.P. 12(f) to state their essential findings of fact on the record. Without such findings, the appellate court must engage in a de novo review. Certainly, there have been occasions where this has been reluctantly done under the theory that the Court can affirm on any ground supported by the record. The court has never, however, analyzed when such leniency might be granted, or even if it is ever appropriate under the language of Rule 12(f).

Rule 12(f) is meant to create a record that allows for proper appellate review. If appropriate appellate review is possible, then, although the court is loath to do so, it will proceed with review even in the face of a violation of Rule 12(f). Failure to comply with Rule 12(f) puts the Court in the unenviable position of making findings of fact de novo. Its decisions then must be based on written words in a cold record without the benefit of seeing and hearing any live witnesses testify or assessing their credibility and weight of the testimony. This is not a task in which an appellate court should engage. It is a vital function of trial courts to make findings of fact based on evidence it believes credible.
Because fact finding is an essential function of trial courts, the absence of Rule 12(f) findings will be overlooked only when the circumstances of the record make just one conclusion possible, or leave no doubt as to the trial court’s assessment of credibility.

In the instant case, the record on appeal does not allow for application of this narrow exception. The issue is whether Appellant’s consent for law enforcement officers to search his premises was voluntary. The existence and voluntariness of a consent to search is a question of fact to be decided by the trial judge in the light of all attendant circumstances. Thus, the case before the Court is a fact-driven case where the legal principles at issue turn almost solely on the district court’s interpretation of the facts.
The district court was presented with conflicting evidence regarding the circumstances surrounding Appellant’s consent. Despite the contradictory stories surrounding those circumstances the district court did not make any credibility determinations or expressly resolve any factual disputes. The district court was presented also with legal argument under both the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, § 4 of the Wyoming Constitution, yet the district court likewise failed to announce the legal principles on which it was relying. Given the dual lack of findings, the Court lacks any basis for review. Remand is thus required.

Upon remand, the district court must make specific findings of fact. The district court must then determine based on the totality of those facts whether, in light of the mandates of both the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, § 4 of the Wyoming Constitution, Appellant’s consent to the officers’ entry into the mobile home was voluntary. The district court should consider all relevant factors bearing on the question of voluntariness, including, but not limited to, the officers’ demeanor; Appellant’s mental capacity; the detective’s statements about the search warrant and associated search; deception, trickery or threats; and the presence of other coercive factors.

In this case, effective review is impossible because of the complete lack of factual findings and legal reasoning given by the district court for its denial of Johnson’s motion to suppress. The record is remanded for the limited purpose of the entry of a supplemental order including the factual findings required by Rule 12(f) as well as a statement by the district court of the conclusions of law it has reached on those findings. The Supreme Court retains jurisdiction and will determine if rebriefing is warranted after the new order is entered in the record. The district court shall have ninety (90) days in which to enter its supplemental order and return the record to the Court.

Remanded.

J. Golden delivered the opinion for the court.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/m75ntt

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. Please note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]