349 P.3d 969
Wyo.2015Background
- Gerald Manzanares (also known as Gerald David Roderick and Gerald David Shupe Jr.) pled guilty to one count of larceny by bailee and two counts of false statement to obtain title; pleas and sentences were accepted March 28, 2013.
- Plea agreements included specified restitution: $1,650 to the Schoelers (larceny) and $26,050.81 for victims of other, uncharged incidents; restitution amounts initially appeared duplicated across the two dockets.
- District court issued judgments and sentences in September and December 2013 (with an amended larceny judgment correcting a duplicate line), ultimately attaching total restitution of $27,700.81 to the larceny docket and none to the false-statement docket after court adjustment.
- Manzanares filed a motion to amend judgment and sentence (Nov. 21, 2013) seeking to remove the duplicated restitution; the court corrected the error but later denied his motion to amend as unnecessary and denied a reconsideration motion as void for lack of jurisdiction.
- He also moved to amend the captions in both cases (Apr. 28, 2014) to reflect a name change; the court denied those motions, citing docket uniformity and absence of authority to permit post-judgment caption changes.
- Manzanares filed his notices of appeal on June 23, 2014; the Wyoming Supreme Court concluded it lacked jurisdiction because the appeals were not timely or were otherwise foreclosed by jurisdictional rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction over motion to amend judgment & sentence (restitution) | Manzanares: restitution was duplicated and should be removed from larceny docket | State: acknowledged clerical error but argued restitution belonged on larceny docket; court corrected error | Court lacks jurisdiction because Manzanares failed to timely appeal the district court's final order; motion for reconsideration is a nullity (appeal dismissed) |
| Jurisdiction over motions to amend case captions | Manzanares: recent name change justifies amending captions to "Gerald David Roderick" | State/court: no legal basis to change caption after final disposition; change would cause confusion | Court lacks jurisdiction to consider caption amendments because case was final and no statute or rule conferred authority; appeal dismissed |
| Jurisdiction to review claim he was sentenced under a repealed statute | Manzanares: larceny-by-bailee statute was repealed during pendency, so conviction/sentence invalid | State: repeal does not affect pending prosecutions under controlling statute; procedural rules control timeliness | Court lacks jurisdiction because Manzanares failed to perfect a timely direct appeal of the claim; appeal dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Freeman v. State, 246 P.3d 601 (Wyo. 2011) (motions for reconsideration in criminal cases are nullities and cannot toll appeal deadlines)
- Plymale v. Donnelly, 125 P.3d 1022 (Wyo. 2006) (denomination of a filing as a motion for reconsideration renders it a nullity for jurisdictional purposes)
- Kurtenbach v. State, 290 P.3d 1101 (Wyo. 2012) (district court loses authority after final judgment unless a rule or statute expressly confers post-judgment jurisdiction)
- Brown v. State, 175 P.3d 1158 (Wyo. 2008) (conviction is final upon judgment and sentence and case is no longer pending)
- Ragsdale v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., 169 P.3d 78 (Wyo. 2007) (cited in support of authority regarding motions for reconsideration being void)