Brittany Leanne Poignee v. State, 369 P.3d 516

In 2009 Poignee pleaded no contest to delivery of methamphetamine; proceedings were deferred and she was placed on probation. After violations, the court revoked probation in 2011, entered judgment, then suspended a 3–5 year sentence and reinstated probation for three years.
Poignee’s probation was set to expire February 2014; on January 14, 2014, a probation agent filed a petition to extend probation to August 18, 2015. Poignee signed a written consent; no counsel represented her and no hearing was held. She did not appeal the extension order.
The State supervised Poignee and provided services during the extended term. In February 2015 the State filed a petition to revoke probation; counsel was appointed for Poignee in the revocation proceedings.
At the revocation hearing defense counsel argued the January 2014 extension was invalid because Poignee had no counsel and allegedly consented under coercion; Poignee admitted the underlying violations but claimed she consented only to avoid prison.
The district court concluded Poignee had no right to counsel at the extension proceeding, revoked probation (then reinstated it subject to future compliance), and Poignee appealed the revocation order. She did not appeal the 2014 extension order within the 30‑day window.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether revocation was improper because Poignee lacked counsel when probation was extended and the violation occurred during the extended term	Poignee: she was entitled to counsel for the extension; extension was coerced, so revocation during extended term is invalid	State: Poignee failed to timely appeal the extension order; challenge to extension is time‑barred and res judicata applies	The challenge to the extension is time‑barred and barred by res judicata; revocation order affirmed
Whether appellate court has jurisdiction to review the extension now	Poignee: asserts substantive right to counsel authorizes review in revocation appeal	State: W.R.A.P. 2.01 requires appeal within 30 days; failure deprives appellate jurisdiction	Court lacks jurisdiction to review the January 2014 extension because Poignee did not timely appeal
Whether res judicata bars raising the extension issue in the revocation appeal	Poignee: argues lack of counsel excuses earlier challenge	State: issue could and should have been raised earlier; finality requires preclusion	Res judicata applies; Poignee failed to show good cause to excuse earlier appeal

Gomez v. State, 85 P.3d 417 (Wyo. 2004) (failure to timely appeal probation-related order deprives appellate court of jurisdiction)
Mead v. State, 2 P.3d 564 (Wyo. 2000) (issues not raised on direct appeal are barred by res judicata in later collateral proceedings)
Brisson v. State, 955 P.2d 888 (Wyo. 1998) (uncounseled prior conviction cannot be used to enhance later charge; addressed entitlement to counsel in prior proceeding)
Rubeling v. Rubeling, 406 P.2d 283 (Wyo. 1965) (statement of the doctrine and policy basis of res judicata)
Chapman v. State, 300 P.3d 864 (Wyo. 2013) (timely filing requirement for notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional)