Amrein v. State

AMREIN, Petitioner, Terrence Respondent. Wyoming,

STATE of 91-30.

No. Wyoming.

Supreme Court of

Aug. Gallivan, Director, Wyoming

Gerald M. Laramie, Program, peti- Defender Aid tioner. Gen., Sylvia

Joseph Meyer, Atty. L. B. Hackl, Gen., Atty. L. Deputy Jennifer Gim- Donovan, bel, Attys. Asst. Larry M. Sr. Gen., Program: Assistance Prosecution Lauer, Director, Sean P. Dur- Theodore E. Intern, rant, Cheyenne, respon- Student dent. MACY, C.J., THOMAS, Before *

CARDINE, GOLDEN, URBIGKIT and JJ.

* argument. at the time of oral Chief Justice eight

GOLDEN, justice of the nine counts. The of of Justice. peace petitioner the six sentenced to serve by a jury presided In a trial over nonlaw- jail pay months in and ordered him to a fine petitioner of Terrence yer justice peace, the eight counts, jail of on each of the the $750 eight of Amrein was of counts convicted consecutively. run sentences to Conse- cruelty to serve to animals. Sentenced quently, jail faces petitioner years four terms of six months eight jail consecutive $6,000. totaling and a fine eight pay and ordered to fines of $750 each justice peace the the of of court in criminal each, petitioner appealed the to the district cases is defined: court. That court affirmed. Petitioner peace juris- petition Justice of the courts have filed with court his for a then this amounting diction in criminal to seeking a review issues all cases writ of certiorari of counsel, concerning right jeopar- misdemeanor for which to double [misdemeanors] punishment prescribed dy, jurisdiction. and lack This court law does of petition granting imprisonment issued its order exceed for more than considering purpose (6) of three issues: a six months and fine of not more fifty than hundred seven dollars appellant right his to 1. Was denied ($750.00). include Jurisdiction shall also presiding judge was counsel because the those cases in the defen- criminal nonlawyer peace? justice a placed probation period dant on for a against appellant’s right 2. double Was (6) exceeding the maximum six months he was violated when convicted imprisonment Wyo.Stat. sentence under multiple cru- and sentenced on counts of 31-5-233(d). a elty to animals which resulted from criminal act or transac- continuous Wyo.Stat. (Supp.1991). 5-4-116 § tion? petitioner We hold that not denied jur- 3. Did the lack right nonlawyer his to counsel because a (8) eight to impose isdiction consecutive peace presided peti- over the (8) and jail eight six month terms hold, however, jury tioner’s We trial. consecutive fines? $750.00 petitioner’s against right in the We consider these issues context he and was violated when was convicted background. following multiple cruelty factual Fol- on counts of sentenced investigation allega- lowing the sheriffs from single animals that resulted a continu- forty forty-five and tions that horses cows Accordingly, ous criminal transaction. petitioner’s custody in the had de- convictions, been sen- reverse all but one shelter, food, water, dep- and prived of fines, petitioner’s tences and affirm the county attorney uty prosecuting sentence, conviction, count and fine on one County filed an Sublette information In dis- cruelty light animals. of this against petitioner in the question position, we do address charging forty-four court him with whether the cruelty animals in counts violation impose eight consecu- jurisdiction to lacked 6-3-203(b) (June 1988). Wyo.Stat. § fines in case. jail tive terms prosecution amended After the infor- times, petitioner

mation several went DISCUSSION jury on nine trial before counts. Com- Right to counsel. mon to all counts amended infor- brief, princi- in his “the prosecutor’s averment Petitioner states mation that a pal petitioner’s argument April unnecessarily Amrein had thrust lay justice jury trial proper failed to each animal before counts, process, of due and more per six se violative food. Of nine referred to * * right specifically A to counsel nonlawyer and three to cows. horses that, claiming to be con- peace presided over the trial. Petitioner seems justice of sidering complications jury represented appointed Petitioner was evidentiary problems, petitioner guilty jury found counsel. counsel, dy under guaranteed both clause to the second answer issue Const, amendment, Wyo. presented. provides This sixth clause an ac

Const, requires judge art. “a protections. protects cused three legal arguments.” acquitted against trained understand accused has who been offense; prosecution second for the same it Canaday protects the accused who has been convict held an due (Wyo.1984),we that accused's against prosecution ed a second process rights violated a trial were not offense; protects same and it the accused presided by nonlawyer justice over against multiple punishments of the same peace. petitioner’s Canaday differs from State, 1117, offense. Birr 744 P.2d specific in did decide claim here that we 1119, denied, (Wyo.1987), cert. U.S. lawyer an cannot function that accused’s L.Ed.2d 671 effectively nonlawyer judge. before We In this case we are concerned with the agree with the state’s here that assessment protection, third and the issue is whether reasoning sup Canaday that underlies petitioner punished was convicted and ports that the conclusion the instant case multiple cruelty counts animals which performance lawyer of an accused’s is single resulted from a criminal transaction. per impaired nonlawyer se when a multiple Since consecutive sentences and judge presides over the misde accused’s imposed trial, single fines were at a peti- meanor trial. correctly points tioner out that “the role of Although petitioner rhetorically asserts is limited to [double clause] disorderly, that his trial was “a if not law- assuring that court does not exceed its less, (or regard free-for-all with little by imposing authorization multi- of) consistency application the rules * * punishments ple for the same offense.” assign- he evidence eschews the Birr, (quoting 744 P.2d at 1119 Brown specific purpose ment of trial errors for the Ohio, establishing Despite error. reversible (1977)). Thus, 53 L.Ed.2d petitioner’s rhetoric, present he fails to problem determining is one the legis- evidence, legal cogent argu- authority, or 3—203(b), underlying lative pro- intent § 6— support lay judges ment to his that claim scribing cruelty recognized to animals. We inherently are so unable to communicate Vigil statutory construction and lawyers with that an is ef- accused denied legislative intent will control the determina- fective assistance of counsel when a non- whether, multiple tion when there are vic- lawyer judge presides an over accused’s conduct, tims from a or act course of petitioner’s trial. We note that the concern many there is only one crime or crimes nonlawyer justice peace’s about a as there Vigil, are victims. 563 P.2d at training Wyoming. is not well-founded in Vigil 1352-53. In noted a difference in we In state must this persons in against crimes contrast training or attend a school after election said, against crimes We property. “As appointment to office and must continue to general exceptions, proposition, few with training such attend while office. We crimes when against person, contrasted reject petitioner’s assignment of error on against property, there are as crimes point. many individuals affected.” offenses as at Id. 1352. jeopardy. 2. Double State, general principles Vigil Applicable P.2d recognized (Wyo.1977), this court include: if the construction lan although unambiguous, found guage clauses is clear and we must statute; meaning in Wyo. plain Const. art. and in the fifth abide Const, amendment, ambiguous, may “are if a we dissimilar statute resort to construction; language, they meaning general principles have the an same am application.” being biguous meaning are coextensive That statute one whose so, susceptible apply jeopar we shall our state’s double uncertain and more than one statute, complaint an am same under meaning; theory in a criminal leni resolved in favor of biguity should be both are the same character or are based (Wyo. ty. Story constituting part on the same transaction 1988). also, P.2d Capwell v. See plan. a common at 186- scheme Id. (Wyo.1984). 1148 1152-53 possession In Jerskey, which involved marijuana, with intent deliver we found proposi- foregoing With above transaction, only one not different transac mind, principles turn to tions support multiple tions which would convic ques- language of criminal statute in tions. We held: tion: person cruelty A to animals commits There was but transaction —one charge custody any if he has the plan and, common scheme or because — pro- unnecessarily fails to animal and merged another, one offense was food, proper drink or vide it with the may the convictions stacked be- weather, cruelly protection the from the cause result would be to have twice abandons the animal. the in in placed jeopardy defendant that added). 6-3-203(b) multiple punish- he would have received Wyo.Stat. (emphasis ment the same offense at one trial. emphasizes legislature’s The state the in singular pronoun the noun use of and prejudicial error for was therefore “it,” i.e., “any animal,” and provision, the judgment the court to enter and sentence Further, animal.” the traces the “the state the alleged for more than one of crimes. stages in the humanitarian effort late at 187. Id. century the last which contributed case, In the instant the amended cruelty enactment of to animal statutes. charged cruelty Amrein information Claiming impulse is that this humanitarian 1, 1989, failing April to nine animals on suffering pain concerned with the and unnecessarily provide food. them with endure, which each mistreated animal must Considering ambiguity statutory argues the state that the intent out, provision, petitioner points animals, protect was to individual transac prosecutor’s identification individually pain suffering. and feel information, as the rule tion well as in.the hand, petitioner maintains On the other lenity play when which comes into statutory provision susceptible to an exist, ambiguities are we constrained interpretation prosecu- that “unit of cruel close case to hold that Amrein’s this by the con- tion” is determined accused’s April constituted ty to animals on proper it failing provide duct of or them further that the one offense. We hold but food, In protection drink or from weather. may not be stacked because convictions view, petitioner points to support of this placed have Amrein result would tobe legislature’s plural use of the “ani- multiple times that he would opening clause and the modifi- mals” multiple punishments for the have received referring to Re- “any” when “animal.” er same offense. ambiguity of the lying apparent on the provision, petitioner invokes prejudicial it hold was error We in his asks us to decide lenity rule of and judgment and sentence trial court enter point. favor on this cruelty to conviction of for more than one Am- We all but one of animals. vacate considering competing Apart from enter judgment rein’s convictions and peti prosecution contentions cruelty one conviction of tioner, also considered this court’s have punishment to be six animals with the Jerskey discussion in our jail fine of As months and a $750. In (Wyo.1976). 183-87 case, disposes of this issue dis resolution opinion the court the course of that issue need third separate we not address concept merger cussed granting court’s order presented noted this Id. at 186. We criminal offenses. brought in separate charges petition. could be * * * Admittedly Rule URBIGKIT, J., from record. opinion, an this filed 4.01, at the dissenting was not in effect part part. W.R.A.P. concurring in trial, has held in time of J., dissenting THOMAS, opinion. filed a (Wyo. Bearpaw v. URBIGKIT, Justice, concurring part 1990) unavailability of an ade dissenting in part. quate requires for review rever record (The present tried after eight sal. case was agree that convic- I seven trial, the Su Bearpaw but before My reversed. in this case should be tions decision.) preme majority is that I Court disagreement with the find that should further think we transcript indicates a dis- The available eighth conviction should also be reversed lawless, if not free-for-all with orderly, retrial Ter- proper (or a fair and appli- regard consistency little evidence, Amrein. of) rence particu- cation the rules larly dealing hearsay and rele- those wisdom, general appropriately it is vance. critiqued proof pudding that the is in eating. assert, The character conduct considering all of the would also similarly discerned from the trial can circumstances, appellate that Amrein’s transcript. The reading evidentiary recognizes accurately a record that brief appellate Amrein’s characterization he justifies position Amrein “that nine proceeding multiple of this of counsel a process by denied due a trial before was charges presenting exposure an Amrein peace].” For a lawyer justice non [of possible maximum four and one-half denied non-indigency, of a case touches the counsel, developed county jail, appointment in the nine consecutive years which each, form, thoughtfully unsatisfactory and very of six months here in a sentences time, Origi- multiplied same what the record reveals. misdemeanors at the describes Burke, v. 24 Wis.2d beginning forty-four separate see ex rel. Barth nally with State 128 422 justice N.W.2d in the of the court for counts inadequately feeding livestock fol- his majority that the multi concur with re- lowing several amended informations ple in this case all related offenses counts, nine Amrein was sulting in convict- offense for double lay justice eight crimes for which ed of jurisdiction- limitation require would to one peace provided misdemeanor crime ally justice limited sentence county in the totalling years four sentences Wyo. peace court.1 Const. art. § total, by sentencing, The jail. consecutive multiple to reversal of the addition the absolute maximum could be was offense, I counts reverse for one would conglomerated. proper remand for conviction and a by mixing “pudding,” to found This exposure provide some Amrein reasonable case, in this described Am- metaphors is The equal protection process. due appellate rein brief: Bearpaw appellate (adequacy issue outset, may record,

At the we never know State, P.2d 70 Bearpaw v. case, prejudice in this limited as (Wyo.1990)) extent actually presented, not record. The tran a are to available with properly provided court is “not re- script jury appellate recites that selection was complete sufficient record for dire, critically at request counsel.” which was transcribed view since voir * * * argument, opening important, opening Nor were statements. and final like * * * Closing are also absent arguments omitted. Const, State, Wyo. accept principles within Birr v. P.2d 1. I will (Wyo.1987), 3224, U.S. cert. denied 496 110 S.Ct. Fifth Amendment art. 11 and § justified Furthermore, as the 110 L.Ed.2d 671 Birr Constitution. United States See, however, authority. Garcia not, are, consistent but Garcia Schultz (Wyo.1989) Schultz Ohio, 97 S.Ct. Brown J., (Wyo.1988), Urbigkit, specially P.2d concurring, 53 L.Ed.2d 187 recognized properly both of which existing tinue effect under statutes changed by legislature. until permits a maximum six months incarceration. Id. at 519. (1992). Here, Wyo.Stat. 5-4-116 how- joint passed resolution in the 1965 ever, presiding jurist try undertook Wyoming legislative session a without dis- proceeding this case where entire senting vote in the fifty- State Senate and multiplied per- charged conduct criminal Representatives five to six in the House of potential for a four-and- strong support mit incarceration membership from years including, specifi- and resulted a sentence of State Bar one-half cally, this writer. The passed amendment county jail. years four That monumen- handily in general the 1966 election. leap jurisdictional over tal limitation has attempted by surely any never been other History does have some relevance in history of territo- analysis principles. constitutional See - government Wyoming. Arizona, rial and state U.S. -, Schad (1991), Sealia, L.Ed.2d perspective To regarding the J., concurring part concurring use continued courts judgment. legislature The 1965 counties, populated Wyoming in lesser election, electorate in the 1966 directed at some historical reference is informative. tention to a to provide desire for the devel Initially, system that court was constitu- opment improved judiciary. an state tionally There based. reason for the Elimination of the of the peace/lay amendment, Original constitutional Senate system judge then constitutionally em- Wyo.Sess. Joint Resolution No. placed indispensable accomplish sponsor Laws at 518. The was Senate result. Tobin, Judiciary Chairman legisla- Dick Passage of the constitutional amendment exceptional and Wyoming tive statesman only by gradual develop followed citizen in local affairs and Bar American county ment the system court to now leadership. statement, Association A in- population serve two-thirds of the cluded in submission of the constitutional Wyoming, initially require state of but electorate, recognized amendment to the remaining the need eliminate the sta- constitutional lawyers, if officeholders would be avail tus courts and to Unfortunately, county able. as the court Wyo- move forward to modernization of the system progressed, trained law ming judicial system: yer/judge requirement subjected to an was unremitting by legislators attack rural area following statement en- shall be finally Wyo and came to be removed from on foregoing proposed dorsed amend- ming by Wyo.Sess.Laws law ch. by Secretary ment of State of the law became without Governor’s Wyoming: State of signature on February 1979. Our state constitution establishes and This course of events came to establish prescribes unequal justice be the level also, courts; gives legis- it aspiration. accept cannot authority municipal lature to establish result, constitutionally logically. either or and proposed arbitration courts. This Unfortunately, participated amendment, adopted, if would eliminate of in- cooperated acceptance and with the and, all such courts from the constitution system equality as a standard

instead, give legislature the would politically appropriate and constitution- authority to establish the subordinate ally Canaday infirm resolution found in v. it courts deems best suited to our mod- State, (Wyo.1984). I will not provide ern jurisdic- needs and for their acceptable precept endorse a lesser but and functioning. tion and manner of In the aspirations to precedent instead of our meantime, system legally- present competent, qualified, would con- have and judicial v. Justice Court generally, judiciary. Gordon to make deci- competent, trained County, Dist. Yuba Judicial Sutter sions; plumber, like the with an even Cal.Rptr. 12 Cal.3d fingers, would not equality of skill of the Trenkner, See R. Anno- Thomas person’s operate thoughtful choice to be a on Restrictions tation, Constitutional life death is at stake. when or on heart Judge in Nonattomey Acting as Crimi- competent Lay equally not judges are Proceeding, 71 A.L.R.3d nal judges law-trained way same Russell, North See also perform likely equivalently would (1976), where a 49 L.Ed.2d 534 S.Ct. professions occupations expertise appeal.2 was available retrial de novo lay judge’s economic career from which the simple of the matter is that fact developed. developed practice experienced and basic fact, Simply operational as an stated per- opportunity provide better skills expertise knowledge is criteria where pro- regarding That true formance. judges provide do not performance, lay sur- player, the heart fessional football part-time justice of equal justice and the In cur- military commander. geon, and the cannot, general, pro- system time, training, expertise, and skill rent expertise equal to that system vide a overwhelming dif- provided the execution full-time, provided counties where War between in the Persian Gulf ference provided. county judges mili- are vanquished Iraqi law-trained

this nation tary “adequate if forces. me that even un- seems to equal” justification remarkably sim- profession it likewise with the So and, in equal”, a small “separate ilar to general, hearsay judging. process Due way, equivalent capacity has an relevancy require- specificity, Plessy Fergu- See harm. similar societal knowledge experi- ments for technical son, 537, 16 41 L.Ed. application, determine that neither enced and Brown v. Board Edu- (1896) surgeon nor the heart are plumber (1983); Skrynski, People Clearly, 42 N.Y.2d the abrasive P.2d 1342 218, as now demonstrated (1977) present case and result- 397 N.Y.S.2d 366 N.E.2d and abusive facts of this sentence, (alternative county jail four-year Justice to trial before a law-trained Rose Konz, analysis judge); Young constitutional 91 Wash.2d correct in his rights perception Canaday, (guilty plea, otherwise in dissent judge). P.2d at 901. de law-trained novo trial before by created 1 have another concern which is Furthermore, accept I do not trial de novo majority's obligation of the reliance on the plea present guilty acquittal to be cases justice non-lawyer obtain addi- to equal persuasive authority process for due posi- training responsibility as a of his tional Wyoming protection of either or construction Rules for Justice of the Peace Courts— tion. 328, North, 427 U.S. S.Ct. federal law. See 96 Rules, 2(f) part: in Administrative Rule states (de trial); v. State ex rel. novo Treiman 2709 attend, agree avail- and attend the first "Must to (untrained Miner, (Fla.1977) So.2d 819 343 training appoint- or school after election able trial); People judge right v. to conduct denied annually training school held ment and each 962, 104, Sabri, Ill.App.3d 6 Ill.Dec. 362 47 office, subject to disci- in or be court, thereafter while (1977) (intermediate appellate N.E.2d 739 by Wyoming imposed plinary action to be objection judge jail and no no by led the State's 70, Supreme We are not Rainaldi, Court." entered); 89 N.M. 547 Tsiosdia v. any in this appellate to record evidence (trial brief (1976) appeal on before P.2d 553 de novo who conducted this Duncan, the office holder case that judge); legally State v. 269 a trained did, regu- upon appointment or originally 510, (1977) plea); (guilty trial Ex 238 S.E.2d 205 S.C. thereafter, any legal training pro- larly Ross, attend (Tex.Cr.App.), parte cert. 522 S.W.2d 214 1018, 454, grams Su- sponsored either 46 L.Ed.2d 423 U.S. 96 denied rely on the preme otherwise. Since we (guilty plea); Court or Shelmidine v. 390 judge, per- 1976) presiding who Jones, (Utah competency (justice of responsibility constitutional, significant judicial statute en formed this but law, training measure of require some granting litigant the without documentary forced compliance with the of legally judge). Ditty Hamp indication v. trained See also provided requirement ton, training before (Ky.1972), should dismissed on 490 S.W.2d 772 219, compliance 885, regarding grounds can be taken 94 S.Ct. comfort 414 U.S. other compe- requirement (1973) (de an appeal legally indication L.Ed.2d 133 novo Haar, 609, properly conducted trial. judge); 100 N.M. tence to State v. trained Kan., Topeka, County, recognized It is cation Shawnee the result of the 98 L.Ed. 873 majority decision is to reduce this case ato accept I cannot but proper status, misdemeanor it does not unfair) unequal concept (equivalent but of do jurisdictional so on a basis. avoids equiva- Canaday, 687 P.2d nor the issue, I with which am in disagree lency Amrein, suggested in this case that my perception, ment. resolution charged extremely an serious offense leaves unresolved the basic area, provided equal oppor- in rural jurisdictional question clearly that was tunity justice. provided The record presented. justice I would hold that the proceedings categor- transcript these jurisdiction the peace any loses criminal ically speaks to validity this conclu- case charges when the combined included certainly expertise sion. There in ranch- prosecution relating in one general to one accounting many, and without which course can of events extended convic most, lawyers if not will be ill- themselves given tion so that the sentence would ex prepared profitably practice as their life- ceed six months of If incarceration. profession. Legal training, time ranch- like prosecution pursue separate wants ing expertise, validity competent has its charges raising possibility of consecu management. here, tive sentences such as occurred then person Wyoming,

Each when taken to jurisdiction provided can be charge the bar of face a criminal proceedings only by utilization of the con incarceration, in jail that could result stitutionally mandated court—the district expect only should be entitled to a fair court. Houtz v. Board Com ’rs Coun judge, judge profi- but also a trained and Uinta, ty Wyo. (1902); 70 P. 840 adjudicative profession cient Bouche, State (La.App. v. 485 So.2d 950 requires legal training. 1986). retaining If this court is intent on It is trial axiomatic of an accused differentiated standard of Cana person jurisdiction in a court which has no go pur would day, even further for the over the matter cannot result a valid poses particular facts this case guilt determination his or innocence of and determine if we are directed to retain charged. offense for which ishe Den part-time, adjudicators untrained in some Lee, County ver Colo. Court counties, surely then we must carefully (1968); Burns, Grodis system confine the to what (1981); Conn.Supp. 440 A.2d 315 State provide. intendment does I would limit Bullis, (1970); 93 Idaho provided what is Anderson, 614, 8 Baldwin v. 51 Idaho P.2d legislature so that the (1932); Yoes, 271 N.C. State try cannot a combination of claims (1967); Graham, S.E.2d 386 Bourne v. prosecution which the from S.C. 197 S.E.2d 674 capacity pro the would have Furthermore, I this pro find violation in a vide sentence in excess of what is statu 1, ceeding Wyo. using of 9 in Const. art. § provided torily of six months incarceration. a jury, potential pen six-member since the counts, I would reverse this case on all alty years surely of of four confinement trying because the not which the misdemeanor result for involving potential a case confinement guarantee of constitutional a twelve-mem words, year. of other excess a this case jury provided by Wyoming ber Con tried in a court like that if we should stitution. is discerned felony prosecution for a again Sargasso set sail that the equal greater on the Sea imposed was to sentences jurors significantly felony constitutional standard twelve for other serious of provided felony for convictions should be augment fenses. This is no different from Bouche, provided as separate incidents to achieve felo crew members. See a Williams, Watkins, 866, 64 ny offense. In re Cal.2d 485 So.2d 950. also v. See State 917, (1966). (La. 1981)(the Cal.Rptr. aggregate pun 51 415 P.2d 805 404 So.2d 954 870 likewise, in a 26 L.Ed.2d 437 See may imposed determines

ishment which augmentation if jury a trial exists status similar right whether Seale, guilty counts, 461 charges found in v. F.2d are United States two or more trial). Cir.1972). (7th at The assessment Williams 345 more aggregate if totaled found that accept Finally, this court should months, right to a six there was than operation editorializing relative to Here, aggregate jury. totaled since by utilizing legislature publishers’ book right to a twelve- year, more than a compilations statutory insertions should, likewise, protected. jury member action. proper replacement regarding aggregated of similarly, See Legislature, in the en Wyoming State trial, jury of a to a refusal fenses peace jurisdic actment (10th Potvin, 481 F.2d 380 States v. United 147, statute, Wyo.Sess.Laws ch. tion 1985 153, Cir.1973) Owens, 54 N.J. and State 1, Wyo. repeated verbatim 1989 § (1969), cert. denied 396 U.S. 254 A.2d 97 39, 1, provided for the ch. Sess.Laws § 1021, 593, 24 L.Ed.2d 514 90 S.Ct. misdemeanor, singular plural not the mis contempt charges in sequential Codis pub demeanors inserted 506, 418 94 Pennsylvania, U.S. poti v. plain meaning, Application lisher. Al (1974), regard 2687, 41 912 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. lied-Signal, Wyoming Inc. v. State Bd. of sen jury with consecutive entitlement (Wyo.1991), Equalization, 813 P.2d 214 tences, emphatically decisive in should be however, D’Amato, see, Anthony Counter Constitu application of the United States Consequences “Plain Mean intuitive tion on the issue. (1991), teaches ing,” 33 Ariz.L.Rev. 529 persuaded an individ remain when Legislature was that the State charge criminal where is faced with a ual following re-authentication of the careful punishment could be ex the confinement to confine criminal lay of six months period tended from a charge authority prose in one to one years, only total of four-and-one-half cution. “proper” jury— entitled to a the individual jurisdictional question At issue is the Wyoming, Duncan v. twelve members juris legislature provided has whether 1444, Louisiana, 145, 88 S.Ct. U.S. in criminal to courts to stack claims diction (1968); 9; Wyo. Const. art. L.Ed.2d complaints providing ex a mathematical counsel, competent Wainwright, Gideon v. If authority. ultimate this is pansion of 792, 335, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 83 S.Ct. 372 U.S. true, statute is the stated limitation in the trial, (1963); public Klopfer speedy meaningless vagaries limited where Carolina, 213, 386 U.S. North State of Consider, example, jeopardy. of double 988, (1967); 18 L.Ed.2d 1 In re Oli S.Ct. (Wyo.1987), Birr 499, ver, 257, 68 92 L.Ed. 682 S.Ct. S.Ct, cert. denied 496 U.S. confrontation, (1948); Pointer v. State of versus Schultz 110 L.Ed.2d 671 Texas, 380 U.S. If the (Wyo.1988). (1965); compulsory L.Ed.2d enactment, singu legislature, by used Texas, Washington v. process, State of limitation applied the lar misdemeanor and 14, 87 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 incarceration, completely six months (1967); Wyo. Const. art. 9 and §§ meaning. Allied-Signal, plain rewrite addition, 10; but, the individual is also Inc., change that limita P.2d We competent properly entitled concept plural and delete into a tion jury trial. judge to conduct the trained Cf. limitation that has existed penal maximum 328, North, 2709. As 427 U.S. 96 S.Ct. 1876, law, Wyoming at least since see Supreme Justice White States Court United 71, 1, Statutes, ch. at 430 Compiled § stated, certainly can deemed “no offense be Furthermore, monumental dif to trial purposes for ‘petty’ ference, early Wyoming provided by first for more than six imprisonment jury where many years until continued for law and Baldwin v. New is authorized.” months time, 66, 69, 1886, 1888, opportunity from the recent came York, 90 S.Ct. 399 U.S.

871 a new trial in the district court. Id. at thereof to commit him jail to the of the county discharged until by due course of jurisdiction law. The justices of the justice peace When the in Sublette try public determine of- County, Wyoming undertook the trial fenses, impose punishment, is limited obviously expected pen where he that the by statute to eases in punish- which the alty exposure would more than six prescribed ment by law does not exceed a proceeding, apply months I would fine of one hundred specific imprison- dollars and deny words of the statute and jurisdiction ment for six proceed. considering months in county jail. stacking question regarding criminal of Houtz, 169-70, 11 Wyo. at 70 P. at 842. jurisdictional limitations, fenses and there similarity Houtz has a present comparable principle is a to be found which case since it also involved a livestock of- decisively resolved civil cases that the when, fense incarceration, instead of total amount claimed in plead multi-claim presiding justice entered a fine ing determines the maximum amount for within the beyond statute but jurisdic- jurisdiction. court’s Copper Miami provided tion by statute for his court. State, 179, 149 (1915); Co. v. 17 Ariz. P. 758 in reducing concur imposed the sentence Superior Hammell v. Court In and For Amrein for improper contended 5, feeding of Angeles County, Los 217 Cal. (1932); single his animals crime Phillips on the v. Snowden Placer basis Co., 66, (1916); jeopardy. Nev. 160 P. 786 double Additionally, however, Salitan v. Dashney, 219 Or. should reverse the conviction of the (1959). Aggregate amounts and remaining offense and remand for trial as counts unite to exceed amount a misdemeanor in proceeding where due is without process equal protection provid- will be jurisdiction. Strong, Filtsch v. 158 Okl. ed. We should confine the 13 P.2d 163 To the same ef peace jurisdiction court to a total misde- fect, result, but with a different see Bour punishment meanor limitation. York, goyne Conn.Supp. 265 A.2d (1968) (citing United States v. Prid THOMAS, Justice, dissenting. 48, 62, geon, U.S. S.Ct. (1894)), jurisdictional

L.Ed. 631 where the I dissent from disposition of this case limit enforced, for multi-counts according to the majority opinion. I am only to result in a reduced sentence. not necessarily dissatisfied with the result but, my view, this case is one that would Many years ago, this court addressed the disposed best applying the doc results where a merger trine of sentencing. of offenses for try undertook to scope a case when the This acknowledged pro court has that the possible punishment jurisdiction. exceeded against hibition found in Houtz, Wyo. prede- 70 P. 840. Our both the Fifth Amendment to the Constitu cessors, court, jurists on this then said tion of the United States and in Article statutory sentencing potential Section 11 of the Constitution of the State misdemeanor jus- offense was in excess of protec affords three distinct peace jurisdiction: tice of the those, Among tions to the accused. is the It is certain that the acting protection against multiple punishments pronounc- excess of his the same offense in a trial. E.g., upon parties before him. State, (Wyo. Lauthern v. 769 P.2d 350 only His authority premises was to 1989); (Wyo. Schultz v. 751 P.2d 367 examining magistrate, sit as an upon 1988); (Wyo.1987), Birr v. ordering the accused to be held to an- rt. denied 496 upon swer in the District Court ce him, (1990); charge preferred against 110 L.Ed.2d 671 to take a Brown v. satisfactory Ohio, recognizance appear- for his court,

ance before such or in default L.Ed.2d 187 by holding impose only (Wyo. to one sentence Vigil In pun- merged purposes these offenses filing multiple 1977), we discussed ishment. on those separate verdicts charges and the by jury. charges were returned of the doctrine very description A lucid subject in this introduced

The court sentencing is merger of offenses for way: Whetstine, 344 found in Commonwealth v. separate (1985), crimes that here as that Pa.Super. There are 496 A.2d proven. developed Pennsylvania. All arise charged and has have been doctrine each involves a event but from the same merge, the deciding whether offenses protective and courts are charged victim question is whether offenses subjected another, to citizen individual “necessarily involve” one We have of another. any criminal conduct are needed additional facts whether sepa- compiled in which there were prove pri- cases to offenses once the additional more than one charges, entangling mary proven. rate has been In decid- offense victim, arising of one occur- questions, only out ing merger citizen we focus not there to similarity courts have held elements of the rence in which on the also, imposed crimes, multi- jeopardy primarily, on the no double but trial, question proved in some cases concur- is ple punishments, facts at prac- com- byor those facts show that rent and in others consecutive whether but sentencing techniques. the defendant committed tical effect binations of those question is addressed to the criminal act. precise The trial court of failure of the asserted error Additionally, analysis note that we part of the counts on the to all or traditionally dismiss has revolved merger claims fair trial. grounds concept to the sover- injury around the support imposition eign; in order to at 1351. Vigil, 563 P.2d sentence, one it must be of more than part all or of the counts is Dismissal of conduct con- found that the defendant’s by the ma- precisely disposition made injury to the Com- stituted more than one and favored jority opinion this case monwealth. Yet, dissenting justice. Vigil, the other (citations Whetstine, A.2d at 779-80 prejudice on to hold that no this court went omitted). submitting trying, to charging, attached receiving jury, and the five verdicts. analyze approach, I would Applying that protection afforded the consti- The third in which are concerned this case as one prohibition not reached be- injury tutional the sover- concept about imposed had Vigil quotes the trial court from eign. majority opinion cause only Wyo.Stat. one sentence. 6-3- question, statute 203(b) (1988), I it defines the and note that instance, satisfied, in this that no I am animals, plural. cruelty offense in the trial court because of error occurred sovereign injury It follows that the part all or failure to dismiss evidence for the cruelty animals. The grounds of double counts on the substantially identical ex- several counts Certainly, the and fair trial. evidence that more than cept it did establish any adequate justify conviction on The doctrine of was involved. one animal appropriately demon- of the counts as merger, light of common sense applied in arbitrary of one by the selection strated instance, analyzing “unique sustained and unidentified count case, appropri- achieves facts” of this (I of the other convictions. vacation all ate result. the ultimate re- some concern about -have notes, if majority opinion majority the se- under the As the sult in a criminal peace court be reversed lected count should somehow not more review.) punishment for main- case is limited to post-conviction would not more conviction, and a fine of than six months validity of each tain the application of doctrine than $750. permit would merger sentencing recognizes upon jus- limitation COMPANY, INC., BHP PETROLEUM court, single tice of the and the sen- Appellant (Defendant), merged tence for the offenses does not jurisdiction. exceed that Margaret Daniel, Daniel OKIE and Bill Snow, In In re (Plaintiffs). Appellees (1887), quoted 30 L.Ed. 658 the court No. 91-14. writing Crepps Lord Mansfield v. Dur Supreme Wyoming. Court of den, Cowper 640: Aug. 1992. There can be but entire offence on day. one and the same And this is a Rehearing Denied Oct. stronger much case than that which has to, killing been alluded more hares day. Killing

than one on the same

single offence; killing hare is an

ten day more on the same will not multi- offence,

ply the penalty imposed or the killing the statute for one.

It seems to me Lord Mansfield’s comment peculiarly applicable and, to this instance might

while it lead to a conclusion that it resolution,

supports majority I conclude holding in Vigil, which is cited

majority, demands the convictions sus

tained, single but that the penalty im

posed.

Recognizing that the “bottom line” ac-

cording majority opinion and accord- identical, my suggestion I am support prece-

satisfied that we better our

dent in Vigil, perhaps articulated main- posture

tain a Wyo- better law

ming, by acknowledging validity

separate charges convic- time, protect

tions. At the same rights by limiting

constitutional of Amrein imposition punishment clearly jurisdic-

sentence that is within the

tion of the in a

single case.

Case Details

Case Name: Amrein v. State

Court Name: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date Published: Aug 18, 1992

Citation: 836 P.2d 862

Docket Number: 91-30

Court Abbreviation: Wyo.