Summary 2013 WY 145

Summary of Decision November 21, 2013

Justice Hill delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: MERIT ENERGY COMPANY v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, STATE OF WYOMING

Docket Number: S-13-0056

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Appeal from the District Court of Sweetwater County the Honorable Nena James, Judge

Representing Appellant: Randy B. Reed; Gregory C. Dyekman; and Kevin Walton of Dray, Dyekman, Reed & Healy, P.C., Cheyenne, WY. Argument by Mr. Dyekman.

Representing Appellee: Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; Martin L. Hardsocg, Deputy Attorney General; Cathleen D. Parker, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Karl D. Anderson, Senior Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Mr. Anderson.

Date of Decision: November 21, 2013

Facts: This appeal concerns the 2006 valuation of natural gas from numerous gas wells in Lincoln, Sweetwater, and Uinta counties for which Merit Energy was a take-in-kind owner. The State of Wyoming Board of Equalization (SBOE) determined that Merit Energy failed to timely appeal several final Wyoming Department of Revenue (DOR) decisions regarding the amount of taxable gas it had received, resulting in a lack of jurisdiction by the SBOE. The SBOE dismissed Merit’s tax case with prejudice, and the district court affirmed the SBOE’s dismissal.

Issues: Merit lists three issues on appeal: 1. The Wyoming State Board of Equalization erred when it dismissed Merit Energy Company’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 2. The discrepancy letters sent by the Department of Revenue are not final administrative decisions. 3. The notice of valuation change sent by the Department of Revenue is a final administrative decision for purposes of appeal.

The DOR rephrases the issue as follows: Did the mineral assessments constitute final administrative decisions so that Merit had to appeal from them within thirty days and, therefore, did Merit’s delay divest the Board of jurisdiction to hear its eventual appeal?

Holdings/Conclusion: The 2008 tax assessment letters sent by the DOR to Merit Energy were final administrative decisions. Merit had thirty days in which to appeal these decisions and did not do so. We affirm the district court’s decision affirming the SBOE’s dismissal of Merit’s appeal as untimely. Furthermore, we conclude that even if this Court permitted Merit to appeal the Notice of Valuation Change, the doctrine of collateral estoppel precludes Merit from doing so. The underlying taxable value assessments were finalized by the 2008 tax assessment letters. Affirmed.

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

[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. 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]

Summary 2013 WY 134

Summary of Decision October 24, 2013

Justice Voigt delivered the opinion for the court. Dismissed.

Case Name: GUILLERMO EDUARDO GOMEZ v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Docket Number: S-13-0101

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Appeal from the District Court of Natrona County the Honorable David B. Park, Judge

Representing Appellant: Guillermo Eduardo Gomez, Pro se.

Representing Appellee: Peter K. Michael, Chief Deputy Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; Jeffrey S. Pope, Assistant Attorney General; Brian J. Fuller, Student Intern.

Date of Decision: October 24, 2013

Facts: The appellant pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to deliver methamphetamine and the district court imposed a sentence of fifteen to twenty years imprisonment. The district court also found the appellant to be a “qualified offender” under the Addicted Offender Accountability Act (AOAA), recommending the appellant complete intensive treatment for substance abuse. This Court affirmed the judgment and sentence. See Gomez v. State, 2010 WY 140, 241 P.3d 502 (Wyo. 2010). Soon thereafter, the appellant timely filed his first motion for a sentence reduction, which was denied by the district court and no appeal was taken. Two years after affirmance of his conviction, the appellant filed a second motion, pro se, seeking to modify his sentence. The district court denied the motion, finding it untimely, and the appellant now seeks relief from this Court.

Issues: The threshold issue is one that concerns jurisdiction; accordingly, we restate the controlling issue as follows: Did the district court have jurisdiction over appellant’s motion seeking to modify and reduce his sentence?

Holdings/Conclusion: The district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the appellant’s motion, and we, too, are without jurisdiction to consider the appeal. The appeal is dismissed.

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

[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. 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]

Summary 2013 WY 123

Summary of Decision October 9, 2013

Chief Justice Kite delivered the opinion for the Court. Reversed and remanded.

Case Name: KEITH VOGT v. STATE OF WYOMING, ex rel., DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Docket Number: S-12-0283

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County the Honorable Peter G. Arnold, Judge

Representing Appellant: Bernard Q. Phelan, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; Robin Sessions Cooley, Deputy Attorney General; Douglas J. Moench, Senior Assistant Attorney General.

Date of Decision: October 9, 2013

Facts: Keith Vogt was stopped for failing to use his turn signal and subsequently arrested for driving while under the influence of a controlled substance (DUI) in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 31-5-233(b) (LexisNexis 2009). He refused to submit to chemical testing. The Wyoming Department of Transportation (the State) notified him that his driver’s license would be suspended for six months. Mr. Vogt requested a hearing. After the hearing, the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) found there was probable cause for the arrest and upheld the suspension. Mr. Vogt appealed the ruling to the district court, which affirmed the OAH decision. He then appealed to this Court, claiming reasonable suspicion did not exist for detaining him beyond the scope of the initial traffic stop and the OAH ruling that probable cause existed to arrest him for DUI is contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence.

Issues: The issues for this Court’s determination are: 1. Whether reasonable suspicion existed to detain Mr. Vogt for field sobriety tests after he was stopped for a traffic violation; 2. Whether the OAH’s determination that probable cause existed to arrest Mr. Vogt for DUI was clearly contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence.

Holdings: The totality of the circumstances simply does not support the OAH’s conclusion that probable cause existed to arrest Mr. Vogt for driving while under the influence of alcohol or controlled substances. Particularly in light of the fact that the PBT was negative for alcohol and searches of Mr. Vogt’s vehicle and his person prior to his arrest produced no evidence of controlled substances, we conclude a prudent, reasonable and cautious police officer would not have arrested him for DUI. The OAH’s conclusion that probable cause existed to arrest Mr. Vogt for DUI was clearly contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. We reverse and remand to the district court with directions to remand to the OAH for entry of an order reversing the driver’s license suspension.

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

[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. 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]

Summary 2013 WY 119

Summary of Decision October 2, 2013

ORDER AFFIRMING THE DISTRICT COURT’S JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE

Case Name: JAMES EDWIN MEDINA v. THE STATE OF WYOMING
Docket Number: S-13-0080

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

This matter came before the Court upon its own motion following notification that appellant has not filed a pro se brief within the time allotted by this Court. Appellant entered an unconditional guilty plea to one count of sexual abuse of a minor in the second degree. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-315(a)(ii). The district court imposed a sentence of 18 to 20 years. Appellant filed this appeal to challenge the district court’s “Judgment and Sentence.” On July 18, 2013, Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a “Motion to Withdraw as Counsel,” pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). Following a careful review of the record and the “Anders brief” submitted by appellate counsel, this Court, on August 6, 2013, entered its “Order Granting Permission for Court Appointed Counsel to Withdraw.” That Order notified Appellant that the district court’s “Judgment and Sentence” would be affirmed unless, on or before September 23, 2013, Appellant filed a brief that persuaded this Court that the captioned appeal is not wholly frivolous. That order also stated:

***** regardless of whether appellant files such a brief, this Court will correct a discrepancy between the orally pronounced sentence and the written sentence. At the sentencing hearing in this matter, the district court stated that it was “ordering the hundred dollars in public defender fees.” (Sentencing Transcript, p. 17) Despite that, the written judgment requires appellant to pay $400 in Public Defender fees. “A long-recognized rule of this Court is that where there is conflict between the sentence as articulated at sentencing, and the written sentence, the oral sentence prevails.” Pinker v. State, 2008 WY 86, ¶ 7, 188 P.3d 571, 574 (Wyo. 2008). Thus, this Court will, at the conclusion of this matter, order the district court to correct this discrepancy to conform to the oral pronouncement.

Now, taking note that Appellant, James Edwin Medina, has not filed a brief or other pleading within the time allotted, the Court finds that the district court’s “Judgment and Sentence” should be affirmed, subject to the correction noted above. It is, therefore,

ORDERED that the district court’s January 29, 2013, “Judgment and Sentence” be, and the same hereby is, affirmed, subject to correction below; and it is further

ORDERED that this matter is remanded to the district court for entry of an order correcting the “Judgment and Sentence” so that the Appellant is required to pay $100 in Public Defender fees.

DATED this 2nd day of October, 2013.

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