395 P.3d 665
Wyo.2017Background
- In 1995 Steven R. Barela pled guilty to second-degree murder and was sentenced to 28 years to life; his direct appeal was not taken and the conviction became final.
- Barela has repeatedly sought post-conviction relief, sentence reduction, withdrawal of his plea, and habeas relief; prior appeals include Barela I, II, and III, with this Court previously rejecting or finding no jurisdiction for many claims.
- In August 2016 Barela filed two motions in his original criminal case: (1) a records request seeking Department of Corrections and criminal-history/public records; and (2) a "De Novo Review/Clarification of Sentence" requesting a timeline, an order requiring parole, and a numeric maximum term.
- The district court denied both motions for lack of substantive grounds; Barela appealed to the Wyoming Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court held the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to consider either motion because the criminal case was final and no statute or rule authorized the requested civil relief within that criminal case.
- The Court dismissed the appeal and issued a proposed filing-restriction order requiring Barela to obtain advance permission from the Court before filing further papers in his original criminal case, subject to a short window to object.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court could compel DOC to produce records under WY Criminal History Records Act/public records acts within the original criminal case | Barela: court should order DOC to provide a complete copy of his institutional/criminal records | State: district court lacks jurisdiction in a closed criminal case to adjudicate civil records claims | Held: No jurisdiction; district court cannot enforce those civil/public-records statutes within the closed criminal case; appeal dismissed |
| Whether the district court could clarify/modify sentence decades after judgment (timeline, order parole, set a numeric maximum) | Barela: requested timeline, parole order, and numeric maximum term or clarification of how long he must serve | State: no rule or statute permits such relief in a final criminal case; Rule 35 deadlines passed; sentence already held legal | Held: No jurisdiction; relief not authorized (too late for Rule 35; cannot order parole or revise legal sentence); appeal dismissed |
| Whether this Court may entertain appeals from orders the district court lacked jurisdiction to enter | Barela: sought review of denials | State: this Court has no greater jurisdiction than the trial court in matters where trial court lacked jurisdiction | Held: This Court likewise lacks jurisdiction to consider these appeals arising from matters outside the trial court’s authority |
| Whether filing restrictions should be imposed on Barela for repeated vexatious filings | Court: Barela has a long history of baseless, repetitive filings seeking unavailable relief | Barela: (no cogent authority presented to rebut) | Held: Court orders Barela to show cause why pre-filing restrictions should not be imposed and sets procedural requirements for seeking leave to file further papers in the criminal case |
Key Cases Cited
- Allgier v. State, 358 P.3d 1271 (Wyo. 2015) (appellate affirmance may be sustained on any proper legal ground supported by the record)
- Lee v. State, 157 P.3d 947 (Wyo. 2007) (trial court jurisdiction in criminal case terminates after judgment, sentence, and direct appeal)
- Kurtenbach v. State, 290 P.3d 1101 (Wyo. 2012) (no post-judgment trial-court authority absent specific statute or rule)
- Messer v. State, 96 P.3d 12 (Wyo. 2004) (subject-matter jurisdiction is essential and cannot be waived)
- Fuller v. State, 568 P.2d 900 (Wyo. 1977) (definition of subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Neidlinger v. State, 230 P.3d 306 (Wyo. 2010) (appellate court has no greater jurisdiction than trial court in such matters)
- Barela v. State, 936 P.2d 66 (Wyo. 1997) (Barela I) (prior denial of sentence-reduction motion)
- Barela v. State, 55 P.3d 11 (Wyo. 2002) (Barela II) (denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea affirmed)
- Barela v. State, 375 P.3d 783 (Wyo. 2016) (Barela III) (prior appeal addressing habeas and sentence-illegality issues)
- DeLoge v. Homar, 297 P.3d 117 (Wyo. 2013) (recognition of courts’ inherent authority to sanction abusive litigants)
- Cosco v. Lampert, 229 P.3d 962 (Wyo. 2010) (addressing filing restrictions and litigant conduct)
- Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1992) (Supreme Court authority on sanctioning abusive litigants)
- In re Sindram, 498 U.S. 177 (U.S. 1991) (sanctions for frivolous filings)
- In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180 (U.S. 1989) (authority to restrict filings by vexatious litigants)
- McMurray v. McCelmoore, [citation="445 F. App'x 43"] (10th Cir. 2011) (standards and procedures for imposing filing restrictions)
- Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F.2d 351 (10th Cir. 1989) (filing-restriction prerequisites and notice requirements)