Summary 2014 WY 9

Summary of Decision January 23, 2014

Justice Hill delivered the opinion of the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: DONALD GEE v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Docket Number: S-13-0142

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: Donald Gee, Pro se.

Representing Appellee: Peter K. Michael, Wyoming Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; and Jeffrey Pope, Assistant Attorney General.

Date of Decision: January 23, 2014

Facts: Donald Gee, appearing pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. Finding that Gee’s claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata, we affirm the district court’s order.

Issue: Did the district court err in summary dismissal of both [Gee’s] pro se petition for correction of illegal sentence and petition to correct sentence?

Holdings/Conclusion: Gee had multiple opportunities to assert his current sentencing claims and prosecute appeals related to those claims, and he offers no acceptable justification for his failure to do so. Gee’s claims are thus barred by res judicata, and we affirm the decision of the district court.

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 quotation, 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 80

Summary of Decision July 2, 2013

Justice Voigt delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: MATTHEW C. KURTENBACH v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Docket Number: S-13-0022

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

Appeal from the District Court of Weston County, the Honorable Keith G. Kautz, Judge

Representing Appellant: Matthew C. Kurtenbach, pro se.

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

Date of Decision: July 2, 2013

Facts: The appellant, Matthew C. Kurtenbach, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence.

Issues: Did the district court abuse its discretion when it denied the appellant’s motion to correct an illegal sentence?

Holdings: We find that res judicata bars review of the issues raised by the appellant because these issues could have been raised in the first motion to correct an illegal sentence but were not. Additionally, even though he included more detailed constitutional issues in the second motion to correct illegal sentence, the appellant is making the same complaint as in the first motion―that he did not receive credit against his Wyoming sentence while incarcerated in other jurisdictions. Further, the appellant has not demonstrated good cause as to why these issues were not raised in the first motion and why the district court and this Court should now consider them. We affirm the district court’s denial of the appellant’s motion to correct an illegal sentence.

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 35

Summary of Decision March 20, 2013


Justice Voigt delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: STEVEN DAVID LUNDEN v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Docket Number: S 12 0145

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

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

Representing Appellant (Plaintiff/Defendant): Diane M. Lozano, State Public Defender; Tina N. Olson, Chief Appellate Counsel; David E. Westling, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff/Defendant): Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; Theodore R. Racines, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Darrell D. Jackson, Faculty Director, Emily N. Thomas, Student Director, Alan J. Dees, Student Intern, Prosecution Assistance Program.

Date of Decision: March 20, 2013

Facts: The appellant, Steven David Lunden, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence. On appeal, he claims that the judgment and sentence entered after he pled guilty to misuse of a credit card and forgery are illegal because he was not advised that his guilty pleas may result in the disqualification of his right to possess firearms pursuant to federal law.

Issues: Did the district court err when it denied the appellant’s motion to correct an illegal sentence?

Holdings: We decline to consider the merits of the appellant’s claim because it is being raised for the first time on appeal. We also find that, had this claim been raised before the district court, it would have been barred by res judicata. We affirm.

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 34

Summary of Decision March 8, 2012


[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: Charles Moronese v. The State of Wyoming

Citation: 2012 WY 34

Docket Number: S-11-0183

URL: http://wyomcases.courts.state.wy.us/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=465162

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, the Honorable Thomas T.C. Campbell, Judge.

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

Representing Appellee: Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Senior Assistant Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General.

Date of Decision: March 8, 2012

Facts: Charles Moronese, the appellant, pled guilty to attempted second-degree murder and received a sentence of 20 to 22 years (or 240 to 264 months) imprisonment. More than four years after starting his sentence, the appellant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence. He alleged that his sentence violated Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-13-201 (LexisNexis 2011) because the minimum term was greater than ninety percent of the maximum term. Rather than decrease the minimum term below the statutory minimum, as requested by the appellant, the district court increased the maximum term from 264 months to 267 months. The appellant appealed, arguing that increasing his sentence after he had begun to serve that sentence violated double jeopardy.

Issue: Whether the district court violated the double jeopardy provisions of the Wyoming and United States Constitutions by increasing the term of the appellant’s prison sentence following the appellant’s motion to correct an illegal sentence.

Holdings: The appellant was sentenced to 20 to 22 years imprisonment for a crime punishable by a term of 20 years to life. This sentence was illegal because it violated the statutory requirement that a minimum term may not be more than ninety percent of the maximum term. As a result of the appellant’s motion to correct an illegal sentence, the district court correctly increased the maximum term from 264 months to 267 months. The corrected sentence should, however, reflect the appropriate credit for the time the appellant served.

The Court affirmed the order granting the motion to correct illegal sentence, but remanded for inclusion in that sentence of credit for time served.

Justice Voigt delivered the opinion for the Court.