Goetzel v. State, 435 P.3d 865

Background

While being booked, Goetzel assaulted an officer, used the officer's radio to get a door opened, escaped, and was recaptured days later; he pled guilty to multiple felonies including escape and interference with a peace officer.
The district court imposed multiple sentences, some concurrent and some consecutive; Goetzel did not directly appeal the 2011 judgment and sentence.
Goetzel filed successive post-judgment motions: a 2012 sentence-reduction motion (denied), a 2015 sentence-modification motion (denied as untimely), and a 2016 Rule 35(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence asserting double jeopardy (denied on the merits).
This Court (Goetzel I) held the 2016 double jeopardy claim was barred by res judicata because it could have been raised earlier; Goetzel later sought certiorari alleging ineffective appellate counsel, which was denied because he had no constitutional right to counsel on the Rule 35 motion.
In 2018 Goetzel filed a petition under the Post-Conviction Determination of Factual Innocence Act and amended post-conviction statutes, again asserting double jeopardy and ineffective assistance; the district court denied the petition for statutory noncompliance, res judicata, and lack of cogent argument.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether res judicata barred relitigation of Goetzel's double jeopardy claim	Goetzel argued res judicata should not apply because he filed under new post-conviction/factual innocence statutes and alleged ineffective assistance prevented earlier presentation	State argued res judicata bars claims that were or could have been raised earlier regardless of the new procedural vehicle or counsel claims	The Court held res judicata bars the double jeopardy claim; no good cause shown to overcome the bar
Whether statutory changes (Factual Innocence Act / 2018 amendments) permit relitigation	Goetzel contended new statutes provide a basis to relitigate prior claims	State maintained statutory changes do not negate res judicata where claims could have been previously raised	The Court held statutory changes do not avoid res judicata; prior ability to raise the claim controls
Whether ineffective assistance of counsel excuses failure to raise claims earlier	Goetzel alleged ineffective trial and appellate counsel prevented earlier raising of issues	State argued ineffective assistance claims were either raiseable on direct appeal (trial counsel) or unavailing because there was no right to counsel on Rule 35 motions (appellate)	The Court held ineffective assistance did not establish good cause to avoid res judicata; appellate counsel claim fails because no constitutional right to counsel on the Rule 35(a) motion
Whether prior procedural posture (use of Rule 35(b) or earlier motions) prevents application of res judicata	Goetzel argued early motions were not recognized then as proper vehicles for double jeopardy, so res judicata should not apply	State argued subsequent rulings clarified Rule 35 motions could raise double jeopardy and Goetzel nonetheless failed to raise the claims earlier	The Court held that double jeopardy could have been raised earlier under existing procedures and res judicata applies

Key Cases Cited

Goetzel v. State, 406 P.3d 310 (Wyo. 2017) (prior appeal holding the double jeopardy claim barred by res judicata)
Hamill v. State, 948 P.2d 1356 (Wyo. 1997) (Rule 35 motions may be subject to res judicata)
Gould v. State, 151 P.3d 261 (Wyo. 2006) (res judicata bars issues previously decided or that could have been raised)
Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1932) (same-elements test for double jeopardy)
Wainwright v. Torna, 455 U.S. 586 (U.S. 1982) (no deprivation of effective assistance where there is no constitutional right to counsel)