Rathbun v. State
2011 WY 116
| Wyo. | 2011Background
- Appellant Rathbun accosted a woman and struck her; charged with attempted kidnapping (felony) and battery (misdemeanor) on Aug 3, 2009.
- Preliminary hearing in circuit court led to dismissal of the attempted kidnapping charge without prejudice due to concerns about probable cause.
- Battery case proceeded; Rathbun pled guilty and was sentenced to 180 days in jail.
- Rathbun was charged anew with attempted kidnapping; a second preliminary hearing occurred before a different judge, Rathbun bound over for trial.
- Rathbun was convicted of attempted kidnapping in district court and sentenced to life imprisonment.
- Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed, addressing double jeopardy, res judicata/collateral estoppel, sentencing range, and jury-trial relevance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does double jeopardy bar prosecution for attempted kidnapping after battery conviction? | Rathbun argues attempted kidnapping is a lesser offense of battery. | State argues same-elements test shows distinct offenses; no bar. | Not barred; offenses contain different elements. |
| Does res judicata collateral estoppel bar refiling after a dismissive preliminary hearing for lack of probable cause? | State seeks to relitigate after initial dismissal. | Rathbun contends prior dismissal precludes refiling. | Not barred; res judicata/collateral estoppel do not bar refiling after probable-cause dismissal. |
| Did district court apply the proper penalty range for attempted kidnapping and related sentencing rules? | State contends correct statutory framework supports sentence. | Rathbun argues misapplication of statute or improper range. | District court applied proper penalty range. |
| Did the district court violate the right to trial by jury by determining sentencing range (subsection) rather than by jury finding? | Rathbun argues Booker/Apprendi concerns require jury-found sentencing facts. | State contends Apprendi allows judge to determine mitigating facts; range determined by statute. | No violation; sentencing framework authorized and mitigating evidence within range. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 (1993) (same-elements test governs double jeopardy for related offenses)
- Ohio v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 493 (1984) (guilty plea not an adjudication on the merits for collateral estoppel purposes)
- Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (1970) (collateral estoppel in double jeopardy; identity issue bar to later prosecution)
- Loomer v. State, 768 P.2d 1042 (Wy. 1989) (mitigating kidnapping penalties; structure of Wyoming sentencing for kidnapping)
- Richmond v. State, 554 P.2d 1217 (Wy. 1976) (one preliminary hearing does not preclude another)