Robison v. State
2011 WY 4
| Wyo. | 2011Background
- Robison was convicted of DUI under § 31-5-233(b)(ii)(A) for conduct on 11/2/2008; district court sentenced after a fourth-offender enhancement hearing on 1/21/2010.
- State sought to count Missouri DUI conviction (2002) as a qualifying conviction under § 31-5-233(e) based on the 2004 revocation/sentence event.
- District court counted December 14, 2004 as the five-year starting point for the four- or more-conviction requirement.
- Robison challenged the sentence as illegal for including a Missouri conviction as within the five-year window.
- Robison asserted his counsel was ineffective for not moving to suppress evidence obtained from the stop based on an alleged illegal REDDI stop.
- Court affirmed the sentence and rejected the ineffectiveness claim, holding the stop did not violate suppression standards and the sentence was legal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did sentence impose illegality due to five-year window? | Robison | State | No; district court proper under statute; Missouri conviction counted. |
| Was trial counsel ineffective for not moving to suppress evidence? | Robison | State | No; REDDI tip corroboration and non-anonymous source supported stop; no ineffective assistance. |
Key Cases Cited
- McChesney v. State, 988 P.2d 1071 (Wyo.1999) (anonymous-red tip and reasonable suspicion standards)
- Seteren v. State, 167 P.3d 20 (Wyo.2007) (conviction timing and five-year window considerations)
- McGuire v. Department of Revenue and Taxation, 809 P.2d 271 (Wyo.1991) (definition of conviction timing under Wyoming statute)
- Rutti v. State, 100 P.3d 394 (Wyo.2004) (ineffective assistance standard and Strickland)
- Luftig v. State, 228 P.3d 857 (Wyo.2010) (ineffective assistance framework application)
- Dettloff v. State, 152 P.3d 376 (Wyo.2007) (de novo review of ineffectiveness claims)
- Sincock v. State, 76 P.3d 323 (Wyo.2003) (circumstances surrounding challenged conduct)