Marvin Kenneth Shue v. State
2016 WY 15
| Wyo. | 2016Background
- Shue pled guilty (Mar 10, 2011) to one count of first‑degree sexual abuse of a minor pursuant to a plea agreement recommending 12–22 years; judgment filed June 2, 2011; appellate mandate affirming the conviction filed in district court June 13, 2012.
- Trial counsel offered the victim’s mother money in exchange for recommending no incarceration; that misconduct led to a 2012 disciplinary decision against counsel.
- Shue appealed; appellate counsel filed an Anders brief concluding no non‑frivolous issues; this Court affirmed when Shue did not file a response.
- On December 30, 2014 Shue filed a motion styled as both a W.R.Cr.P. 32(d) motion to withdraw his guilty plea and a W.R.Cr.P. 35(b) motion to reduce sentence, citing "newly discovered evidence" (disciplinary decision documents and a 2014 federal ruling) and asking to reinstate trial and reduce the conviction/classification and sentence.
- The district court denied the plea‑withdrawal request (no manifest injustice shown) and found it lacked jurisdiction to consider the sentence‑reduction motion as untimely; Shue appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court had jurisdiction to consider Shue’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea under W.R.Cr.P. 32(d) filed after appeal concluded | Shue argued his motion was supported by "newly discovered evidence" (disciplinary decision and 2014 federal ruling) showing counsel was ineffective, so relief should be allowed despite timing | State: the motion was filed after conviction was final; Rule 32(d) motions after finality must show manifest injustice and here timing prevented jurisdiction | Motion to withdraw was untimely; district court lacked jurisdiction to consider it because conviction was final and no newly discovered evidence excused the delay |
| Whether the district court had jurisdiction under W.R.Cr.P. 35(b) to reduce sentence more than one year after mandate | Shue contended new evidence justified relief and that he could evade Rule 35(b)’s one‑year limit | State: Rule 35(b) requires a motion within one year of receipt of the mandate; Shue’s filing was beyond that period | Motion under Rule 35(b) was untimely; district court lacked jurisdiction to consider it |
| Whether the asserted "newly discovered evidence" excused timing defects | Shue claimed he did not reasonably have the evidence earlier and cited disciplinary materials and a federal ruling | State argued Shue knew of counsel’s misconduct at sentencing and on appeal; disciplinary decision was published in 2012 and referenced earlier motions; federal ruling was not explained or shown to be newly discoverable | Court found the record did not support that evidence was newly discovered or excused the untimeliness |
| Whether this Court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal from the district court’s ruling | Shue appealed the district court’s denial | State argued because the district court lacked subject‑matter jurisdiction, there was nothing appealable | Court held it lacks jurisdiction to consider the appeal and dismissed it |
Key Cases Cited
- Terex Corp. v. Hough, 50 P.3d 317 (Wyo. 2002) (subject‑matter jurisdiction is essential and a court must have it before entering any effective order)
- Nixon v. State, 51 P.3d 851 (Wyo. 2002) (post‑conviction withdrawal of plea is limited once conviction is final)
- Pfeil v. State, 336 P.3d 1206 (Wyo. 2014) (district court lacked jurisdiction to consider a very late motion to withdraw a guilty plea)
- Hitz v. State, 323 P.3d 1104 (Wyo. 2014) (Rule 35(b) one‑year limit is jurisdictional; untimely sentence‑reduction motion cannot be considered)
- Eckdahl v. State, 264 P.3d 22 (Wyo. 2011) (standard: subject‑matter jurisdiction is reviewed de novo)