Summary 2013 WY 107

Summary of Decision September 17, 2013

Justice Davis delivered the opinion for the Court. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Case Name: CHRISTOPHER D. BALDERSON v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Docket Number: S-12-0267

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

Appeal from the District Court of Park County the Honorable Steven R. Cranfill, Judge

Representing Appellant: Diane Lozano, State Public Defender; Tina N. Olson, Chief Appellate Counsel; David E. Westling, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel; Wyoming Public Defender Program

Representing Appellee: Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; Theodore R. Racines, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Christyne Martens, Assistant Attorney General

Date of Decision: September 17, 2013

Facts: After a day of jury trial, Appellant Christopher D. Balderson pled no contest to one felony count of aggravated assault and battery and one count of misdemeanor battery. Before taking his plea, the district court reminded him of the explanation of his constitutional rights given at arraignment, but failed to advise him of the potential loss of firearm rights, and any impact that loss might have on employment in occupations that require the use of a firearm, as required by Wyoming Statute § 7-11-507. Balderson claims that he should be permitted to withdraw his plea because he was not properly advised. He also contends that several other errors occurred during the change of plea and sentencing hearing.

Issues: Appellant summarizes the issues in this case as follows:Did the trial court commit reversible error by failing to advise Mr. Balderson of his rights as required by W.S. § 7-11-507? Did the trial court err by violating W.R.Cr.P. 11 and W.R.Cr.P. [32] to the extent that Mr. Balderson was denied due process of law? We find the first issue to be dispositive, and therefore decline to address the second.

Holdings: The State urges us to adopt a rule that would not require firearms advisements for defendants with prior convictions which disqualify them from possessing firearms under federal law. However, we cannot read an exception that the legislature has not enacted into the statute, and instead hold that § 7-11-507 applies to all defendants facing a charge which may under federal law result in loss of firearms rights and employment requiring possession of a firearm. The district court’s failure to advise Balderson as required by statute requires us to set aside the judgment of conviction and remand to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We need not address Balderson’s other claims of error during the change of plea hearing, as we have decided that he may withdraw his no contest plea if he wishes. If he decides to plead guilty or no contest rather than go to trial after remand, a new plea will have to be taken. We presume that the district court will comply with W.R.Cr.P. 11 and 32 and § 7-11-507 if that occurs. The district court failed to advise Balderson of the potential loss of his firearms rights under federal law as required by § 7-11-507, as well as the impact that might have on employment. We therefore reverse his conviction and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

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 2012 WY 107

Summary of Decision August 7, 2012

Justice Golden delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: DONALD E. INMAN v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Docket Number: S-11-0211

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

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

Representing Appellant: Robert J. O’Neil, Attorney at Law, Gillette, Wyoming

Representing Appellee: Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Meri V. Geringer, Senior Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Ms. Geringer.

Date of Decision: August 7, 2012

Facts: Donald Inman (Inman) appealed his aggravated assault and battery conviction. Inman did not deny that he assaulted the victim, but claimed he acted in defense of himself and his family. On appeal, Inman asserted the district court erred in allowing a detective to provide lay opinion testimony as to the location of the assault. He also asserted the district court erred in denying his motions for judgment of acquittal, arguing that the victim’s testimony was contradictory and so inherently unreliable that a reasonable juror could not have accepted the victim’s version of events and rejected Inman’s claim of self defense. Affirmed.

Issues: Inman presented the following issues on appeal:

1. The denial by the Honorable District Judge John R. Perry of Defendant’s Motion in Limine: WRE 701 dated January 5, 2011 and the admission of improper lay opinion evidence of Gillette Detective Becky Elger; and

2. The denial by the Honorable District Judge John R. Perry of Defendant’s Motion for Judgment of Acquittal – Criminal Rule 29(c) dated March 25, 2011.

Holdings: The district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Detective Elger’s Rule 701 opinion testimony, and it properly denied Inman’s motions for judgment of acquittal. 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 2012 WY 35

Summary of Decision March 9, 2012


[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]

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

Case Name: Gary Allen James v. The State of Wyoming

Docket Number: S-11-0158

URL: http://wyomcases.courts.state.wy.us/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=465173

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

Representing Appellant (Plaintiff/Defendant): Diane M. Lozano, State Public Defender; Tina N. Olson, Appellate Counsel; and Kirk A. Morgan, Assistant Appellate Counsel.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff/Defendant): Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; Terry Armitage, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Robin Sessions Cooley, Deputy Attorney General.

Date of Decision: March 9, 2012

Facts: Gary Allen James was convicted of two counts of aggravated assault and battery and two counts of DUI with serious bodily injury. The district court imposed four consecutive sentences, but James contends on appeal that the convictions should have merged to two convictions for sentencing purposes.

Issues: James presents one issue for consideration: Whether the district court erred when it imposed consecutive sentences in violation of [James’] constitutional right against multiple punishments for the same offense.

Holdings: The Court found that the convictions in this case should not have merged at sentencing, and the district court is affirmed.

Justice Hill delivered the opinion for the court; Justice Voigt filed a special concurrence, in which Justice Golden joined.

I agree with the result reached in the majority opinion. I write separately only to encourage this Court finally to abandon the fact or evidence approaches to the issue of merger and to adopt as our only standard the statutory elements test. See Winstead v. State, 2011 WY 137, ¶ 16, 261 P.3d 743, 746 (Wyo. 2011) (Voigt, J., specially concurring); Baker v. State, 2011 WY 123, ¶ 23, 260 P.3d 268, 274 (Wyo. 2011) (Voigt, J., specially concurring); and Najera v. State, 2009 WY 105, ¶ 17, 214 P.3d 990, 995 (Wyo. 2009) (Voigt, C.J., specially concurring). For too long, we have ignored the fact that the United States Supreme Court rejected the “conduct” or “evidence” test in favor of the statutory elements test by overruling Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508, 110 S.Ct. 2084, 109 L.Ed.2d 548 (1990) in United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 704, 113 S.Ct. 2849, 2860, 125 L.Ed.2d 556 (1993). We should follow suit.