Armando Ramirez v. State, 386 P.3d 348

In July 2013 Armando Ramirez drove in a crash and was charged with a felony DWUI as an alleged fourth DWUI within ten years. Three prior DWUI convictions (March 9, 2005; August 10, 2005; August 30, 2008) were listed in the information.
Ramirez moved to dismiss in May 2015 arguing the April 2005 conviction could not be used because more than ten years had elapsed between that conviction date and his current conviction date (his conditional guilty plea in 2015).
The district court denied the motion to dismiss; Ramirez entered a conditional guilty plea reserving his right to appeal the denial.
At sentencing the court treated the charged 2013 offense as Ramirez’s fourth DWUI within ten years based on the dates of the actual offenses, and sentenced him to 2–4 years (suspended) with supervised probation.
Ramirez appealed, arguing the ten-year look-back should be measured from the date of the fourth conviction (plea), not from the date of the fourth underlying offense. The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 31-5-233(e)’s ten-year look-back is measured from the date of the fourth conviction or from the date of the fourth underlying offense	Ramirez: ten-year period applies to convictions; his 2005 conviction was more than ten years before his 2015 conviction, so felony enhancement cannot apply	State: statute (amended language) measures the look-back from the date of the last offense; prior offenses are "offense[s] resulting in a conviction" and are measured by conduct dates	Court held the statute is unambiguous; the ten-year period is measured from the date of the last offense (conduct), so Ramirez’s 2005 offense is a valid prior and the felony enhancement applies

Seteren v. State, 2007 WY 144 (examining focus of pre-2010 statute and noting the statute measures convictions but could be read to focus on conduct)
Adekale v. State, 2015 WY 30 (explaining rules of statutory interpretation and giving effect to clear statutory language)
Crain v. State, 2009 WY 128 (plain meaning controls; no room for construction where statute unambiguous)
Stutzman v. Office of Wyoming State Engineer, 2006 WY 30 (court will not add language or change statutory meaning)