Summary 2011 WY 15

Summary of Order February 3, 2011

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it is issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation to a quote the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion will need to have the reporter page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation from this, or any future opinion using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library and we will provide any needed assistance]

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

Case Name: Saccatto v State

Citation: 2011 WY 15

Docket Number: S-10-0198

Appellant pled guilty to one count of aggravated vehicular homicide and guilty to three counts of aggravated assault and battery. The district court imposed sentences of 18 to 20, 8 to 10, and 8 to 10 years. Consecutive to those sentences, the district court also imposed a sentence of 8 to 10 years, which was suspended in favor of 10 years of supervised probation. Appellant took this appeal. On November 17, 2010, appellant's court-appointed appellate counsel filed a “Motion to Withdraw as Counsel,” pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Following a careful review of the record and the “Anders brief” submitted by counsel, the Court entered an “Order Granting Permission for Court Appointed Counsel to Withdraw,” on December 7, 2010. That Order provided that the District Court’s July 26, 2010, “Judgment, Sentence and Order of Incarceration” would be affirmed unless, on or before January 21, 2011, the appellant filed a brief that persuaded the Court that the appeal was not wholly frivolous. In response to the Court’s order, Appellant did file a “Brief of Appellant in Opposition to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).”

The Court carefully reviewed Appellant’s brief. In reviewing appointed counsel’s Anders brief, the Court carefully considered the prosecutor’s statements about good time credit. The Court could not locate anything in the record to indicate that the district court relied on the prosecutor’s statements in imposing sentence. The Court also considered the sentencing proportionality claim. The concluded that it did not need to engage in a proportionality analysis because the length of Appellant’s sentence is not extreme or unusual when compared to the gravity of the offense. The Court then analyzed the sentences under its standard rubric for assessing the reasonableness of the sentence, which gives consideration to the crime, its circumstances, and the character of the defendant. In doing so, it concluded that there was nothing in the record to support a claim that the district court abused its discretion in imposing sentence. Overall, the Court concluded that Appellant’s brief did not provide any reason to conclude that his appeal has merit. It, therefore, ordered that the District Court’s “Judgment, Sentence and Order of Incarceration” be affirmed.