Mebane v. State, 2012 WY 43

Mebane was convicted of possession of methamphetamine (misdemeanor) and two counts of delivery of methamphetamine.
He appealed claiming the trial court failed to inform him before he testified that he had a right not to testify, making his decision to testify potentially uninformed.
At arraignment, the court advised Mebane of his right to remain silent and he understood it.
During trial, after the State rested, there was no readvisement of his right to testify or to remain silent and no objection was raised.
Mebane chose to testify and denied the two delivery charges; he also admitted prior felonies on cross-examination and called a witness in his defense.
The jury found him guilty on all charges and the court imposed consecutive sentences; the issue on appeal is whether the lack of readvise constitutes plain error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the trial court commit plain error by not readvising right to testify?	Mebane argues failure to readvise rendered waiver uninformed.	State contends prior arraignment advisement sufficed and no plain error established.	No plain error; advisement at arraignment sufficed; affirmed.

Sanchez v. State, 841 P.2d 85 (Wyo.1992) (recommends readvise to ensure knowing waiver of right to testify)
Lobatos v. State, 875 P.2d 716 (Wyo.1994) (failure to follow recommended procedure not automatic reversible error)
Harris v. State, 933 P.2d 1114 (Wyo.1997) (reiterates non-mandatory nature of the procedure)
LaVigne v. State, 812 P.2d 217 (Alaska 1991) (defendant may wish to testify; not for court to muzzle him)
People v. Mozee, 723 P.2d 117 (Colo.1986) (prosecution of rights to remain silent requires defense counsel diligence)