Protz v. State, 435 P.3d 394

Andrew Protz was charged by Information with driving while under the influence (DWUI), alleged to be his fourth DWUI within ten years (a felony under Wyo. Stat. § 31-5-233(e)).
Information alleged the May 23, 2017 offense, described statutory elements (BAC ≥ .08 and/or unsafe driving while under the influence), and labeled the count "Driving While Under the Influence - Fourth Offense in Ten Years."
The Information also listed three prior DWUI convictions/arrest and disposition dates (2007, 2011, 2015) and incorporated Trooper Merritt’s affidavit.
Protz entered an unconditional guilty plea pursuant to a plea agreement, was sentenced per the agreement, but later filed a pro se motion claiming the Information failed to state a felony because it did not allege three prior offenses within ten years.
The district court denied the motion; Protz appealed asserting a jurisdictional defect in the Information. The State argued Protz waived the challenge by pleading guilty.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Information failed to state the felony offense of fourth DWUI within ten years because it did not allege three prior offenses within ten years	Protz: Information lists conviction dates but not prior offense dates; thus it did not adequately allege three prior qualifying offenses within the ten-year lookback and so did not state a felony	State: Information used statutory language and alleged prior convictions/dates and therefore sufficiently charged felony DWUI; alternatively, claim waived by unconditional guilty plea	The Information sufficiently charged DWUI with felony enhancement and invoked district court jurisdiction; Protz waived his sufficiency challenge by pleading guilty
Whether omission or error in alleging prior offense/offense dates is jurisdictional (i.e., preserves appeal despite guilty plea)	Protz: omission is jurisdictional because it prevents the Information from stating a felony offense	State: Prior offenses are sentencing/enhancement facts, not elements of the DWUI crime; thus nonjurisdictional and waivable by plea	Court: Prior convictions/offenses are sentencing factors, not elements; omission does not create a jurisdictional defect; claim was waived by unconditional guilty plea

Messer v. State, 96 P.3d 12 (Wyo. 2004) (charging document using statutory words suffices to invoke district court jurisdiction)
Popkin v. State, 429 P.3d 53 (Wyo. 2018) (guilty plea waives all claims except jurisdiction and voluntariness)
Ochoa v. State, 848 P.2d 1359 (Wyo. 1993) (guilty plea admits elements of charged crime)
Kitzke v. State, 55 P.3d 696 (Wyo. 2002) (only jurisdiction and voluntariness survive an unconditional guilty plea)
Davila v. State, 831 P.2d 204 (Wyo. 1992) (failure of indictment/information to state an offense implicates jurisdiction)
Jaramillo v. City of Green River, 719 P.2d 655 (Wyo. 1986) (prior convictions affect punishment, not guilt)
Rhoads v. State, 431 P.3d 1130 (Wyo. 2018) (fourth-offense DWUI lookback applies to conduct/offense dates, not merely conviction dates)
Schuler v. State, 668 P.3d 1333 (Wyo. 1983) (an information may incorporate another document by reference)