*1 Quiet Granting Intervenor's Counterclaim to primary intent is of delivery grantor's affirmed. Title is Id. controlling importance. Lasens argue that the deed Robert instructed as was never delivered of evidence of a "total lack there is La- disagree with the
delivery." must We accepted by Undeniably, was the deed
sens. father's death. filing upon his Samuel 2008 WY79 out, And, points district court as the any willing "ready and Kacey GIBBS, Appellant were Lasens Allan any assets at Anderson's and all of Robert (Defendant), dis- agree more. The could not time." We "clear, trans- irrevocable trict court found Wyoming, STATE County property Rob- fer" of the Goshen (Plaintiff). Appellee only reiterate agree, and ert Anderson. We the fact that a saying the lower court No. S-07-0231. by the and executed second deed was written Wyoming. Supreme Court of the first does not obviate Lasens and delivered. executed deed that was both July Hands Unclean Finally, the Lasens argue that come before this children
Samuel Anderson's hands, alleging first that
Court with unclean give Robert his children refused
Samuel's files, when re property and other
papers, embezzled that Samuel
quested, second trust, from Barbara another
funds from
Lasen, of the 1995 and that the existence concealed
deed and escrow letter This ar
throughout legal proceedings. appeal appears to be
gument fails on by the Lasens herring" argument made
"red this case effort to resurrect last ditch have the Lasens
their favor. they argument make support
failed to what legal analysis pertinent
with citation to or fail,
authority. we do consider Without supported by citation to rele
arguments not Meyer, authority. legal Cathcart
vant ¶ 20, (Wyo.
2004). the Lasens' decline to consider We argument and affirm the district court's
final complaint quiet denying plaintiffs'
order counterclaim granting
title and intervenor's quiet title.
CONCLUSION The district court's Order Denying Quiet Title and Complaint to
Plaintiff's
HILL, Justice. Appellant, Kacey Allan Gibbs (Gibbs), seeks review of the district court's judgment and asserting be- cause the State violated the plea terms of the entered into the State and Gibbs, permitted Gibbs should be to with- guilty pleas draw his plead and anew. We will affirm.
ISSUES Gibbs raises this issue: Should the be vacated and [Gibbs] be allowed to plea because the violated the agreement?
The State views differently: the issue
Did materially substantially [Gibbs] and breach the when he violat- ed a number of prior [district] orders sentencing, thereby releasing the State from under agree- ment. AND
FACTS PROCEEDINGS 21, 2006, July felony [13] On informa- tion was filed Cireuit Court for the Sixth 16, Judicial alleging District that on June 2006, defaced, knowingly Gibbs injured or destroyed property of another in violation of 6-3-201(a) Wyo. (b)) § Stat. Ann. and (LexisNexis 2007). 18, 2006, On November second information was filed in that court, alleging 28, same that on October engaged in conduct that consti- felony stalking tuted Wyo. violation in (e)iv) (Lexis- § Stat. Ann. and Representing Lozano, Appellant: Diane 2007) Nexis and that he entered a motor Defender; Kerin, State Public Appel- Tina vehicle with larceny the intent to commit a Counsel; late Westling, and David E. Senior Wyo. § therein in violation of Stat. Ann. 6-8- Appellate Assistant Argument by Counsel. (b) 301(a) (LexisNexis 2007). Although and Westling. Mr. consolidated, formally never separate the two (and criminal felony charges) actions three Representing Appellee: Bruce A. Sale- single were treated the district court in a burg, Wyoming Attorney General; Terry L. proceeding. Armitage, Deputy General; Attorney D. Mi- Pauling,
chael
Attorney
Senior Assistant
guilty pleas
[14] Gibbs entered not
to the
General;
Smith,
and
M.
Graham
Assistant
charges
September
described above on
Attorney
Argument by
General.
Mr. Smith.
August
March
respectively.
eventually
into a
entered
VOIGT, C.J.,
GOLDEN,
Before
with the State and a
HILL, KITE,
BURKE,
JJ.
hearing
May
was held on that matter on
solely
province of
Sentencing is
within the
agreement was not reduced
2007. The
the Court.
being accepted,
writing prior to
summarize it
court did
but the district
listen to the recommendations
will
form,
judgment upon
the recommendations.
in his
the reason for
written
investigation
just prior
presentence
comments
will review
as in his
pleas, as well
*3
public defender
Department
sentence. Gibbs's
from the
of Corree-
imposing
report
tions,
day,
But at
the end of the
sir.
in these terms:
outlined
I
on
even
whatever
orders
enter
Honor,
agree-
nature of the
Your
part
than that
of the
they're
if
different
property destruction
that the-the
ment is
you'll
have to
them.
motorcycle
be reduced
would
you
that?
Do
understand
misdemeanor;
will
that
understand, and the
misdemeanor;
that he did
that he Gibbs stated
that
plead guilty to
not be
continued:
"You will
motorey-
district court
of the
pay the full restitution
will
you
your plea
and
$1,059.
able to withdraw
cle,
I
is
which believe
Do
go
back on this deal.
won't be able
a
plead guilty to
He will also
(Gibbs
that he
you understand that?"
stated
case,
run-and
the sen-
stalking
which will
the district
did understand.
with that on the
tence will run concurrent
Gibbs,
detail,
great
explained to
misdemeanor;
burglary
case
that
upon
during
him
his
imposed
conditions to be
get
He would
treat-
be dismissed.
would
sentencing, including no con-
release
designated by the ASI [Addiction
ment as
mother of his son and no use or
tact with the
agreed to
Severity
The State has
Index].
being
place
possession of alcohol or
involving VOA
split
sentence
recommend
closing,
In
the dis-
where aleohol is served.
thereafter,
[Volunteers
Americal
my
queried:
"I like to call this
trict court
him to
they've
agreed
also
to allow
that
make a
stupid question,
favorite
but
it's to
there are no
provided
out on bond
remain
you
idea
point. Do
think it would be
any sort.
bond violations of
you
get
in more trouble
or bad idea for
"It
also
added this:
would
prosecutor
you?"
I
now and the next time
see
between
continue to lead a
obviously mean that he's to
stupidest
replied:
"It would be the
Gibbs
no contact with the
law-abiding life and have
thing
my
probably."
life
I've ever done
matter,
Honor."
stalking
in the
Your
victim
guilty pleas
Judgment was entered on the
At
that
hearing,
Gibbs
expressed
June
of his visitation with
concern about the status
appeared
August
Gibbs
[16] On
mother,
his
his son. His son was with
sentencing. At
before the district court for
that
was accused of
was the mother
proceedings,
the outset of those
protection
order.
stalking
violation
fol
court took note that Gibbs was released
court clarified for Gibbs:
The district
lowing entry
guilty pleas but "he's had
of his
complicating features
some additional
Sir,
you
...
I need
to understand
custody
placed him back in the
of the
have
this, the Court has
as almost all of
insofar
The district court then asked
sheriff.
say
part the Court does
no
in it. The one
prosecu
and the
the State's recommendation
sentencing.
say in has to do with
have
replied:
tor
you get,
even
it's
Whatever
recommendation,
bargain was
if I
... At the time this
different
than the
charging
both a
entered into it contained
not,
give you
split
sentence or
decide to
not,
sentencing proposal to the
you
if I
and a
[section]
if I
to send
to VOA or
decide
you
Mr.
has violated both
you're-whatever
Court.
feel
decide that
spirit and the letter of the
motoreycle
going
is
get on the
incident
concurrent,
ment,
regard
and I do not
opposed to
run consecutive as
anymore.
being appropriate
you, you
accept.
agreement
give
have
whatever
erty
appears
the interim.
complicating
to be that
1. That
factor
charged
concealing
prop-
stolen
Gibbs was
connection,
Honor,
In that
Your
I'd note
whether a
has violated an al
leged
to the Court that less than one month after
question
is a
is re
pleas
he entered his
to these
viewed
Spencer
de novo.
(Wyo.
charges,
petition
982-988
filed a
we had
to revoke
2005).
his bond because he had violated
drink-
A plea agreement
is a contract
ing.
through apparent
He had violated it
between the defendant and the State to
violence. He had violated the no-contact
general principles
which the
of contract
provision of his bond with the victim in
applied.
law are
determining
"When
case,
stalking
quite
frank-
whether a breach of
behavior,
'(1)
ly, I think
plus
prior
that his
his
has occurred we:
examine the nature
promise;
leads to this recommendation:
prom
evaluate the
ise
of the defendant's
reasonable
That
in docket
the destruction of
*4
understanding
promise
of the
at the time
case,
property
he should
receive
"
State,
plea
the
was entered." Ford v.
2003
year.
of one
Restitution should be award-
65, ¶ 11,
407,
(Wyo.2003).
WY
69 P.3d
410
$1,059
ined
the amount of
to [the victim].
tended that Gibbs's
had been reduced to
gued strenuously that Gibbs be
accordance with the
court.
nor more than five
to run concurrent
should be sentenced to no less than three
And in docket number
In
response,
to the
punishment
plea agreement,
writing by
years.
defense counsel con-
Gibbs's
4788,
Said sentence
attorney
sentenced
I believe he
should not
in
docket
which
ar-
in
without
Id.
fairness or the
Ford, ¶ 18,
not obtain
the terms of
correct
and at the
State is
[1 10]
Moreover,
remedy
unable
violating
same time avoid its
the (e)(1)(A) may bargained for sentence was (e)(1)(C), plea if the ac- the or report indi presentence reject agreement, imposed. not cept or or the "no reason to dis acceptance that the DOC had the or cated as to defer its decision However, agreement." oppor- agree the rejection an with until there has been dissatisfaction presentence expressed court tunity re- the to consider opportu type report gave Gibbs an that port. is of the If the prepared. (e)(1)(B), nity report a new to have specified in subdivision a motion to with subsequently filed has not the defendant court shall advise not confront guilty plea, so we are accept recommen- draw his the court does not the trial court's abuse any issue as to request, never- ed with dation or denying required every of discretion such motion. We advisement is persuaded comply pursuant are that Gibbs did not ment made to W.R.Cz.P. ll1{(e)(1)(B). plea bargain, If with the terms of the and he this advisement relieved the obligation breach it. That comply was the first does not State of its with the necessarily justify agreement, breach the State it would render the prom- State's (Gibbs form it in this sentencing took but was ise to make a recommendation clearly illusory. on notice the State's
was month with the strictures of W.R.Cr.P. relies ferred its pliance the time of the terms of his release on bond accept ll(c(@2). affirmance of the district court's sentencing hearing. premised upon entirely upon it in preceding The district acceptance his his Gibbs's Thus, sentencing, court, obeying district the basis of our guilty plea conduct opted court's com the law and effect, dant is entitled to have the court consider the and Gibbs until make de his for a reject a sentence reject from plea agreement does not relieve the State dation. specific a defendant promise complying The court's agreed-upon sentencing recommendation, enters a from the State to recommend a with that recommended has discretion to accept or the State is guilty plea discretion to agreement. but pursuant obligated recommen the defen accept exchange When or fully possibility informed of the that the State's recommendation when determining district court would not bar appropriate sentence. approach This is gain and permitted that he would not be to consistent with our precedent. established guilty plea if that was the ulti any signifi "When rests to mate result. degree promise cant on a agreement by State, promise must be fulfilled."
CONCLUSION
25, ¶ 8,
Herrera v.
(Wyo.2008);
*6
Rutti v.
2004 WY
The
[T14]
and sentence of the
¶
133, 42,
(Wyo.2004).
100P.3d
410
"[A]
district court are affirmed.
explicitly
by
must
stand
those
agreed upon
terms
play
'fast
BURKE, J.,
concurrence,
special
files a
and loose' with the established terms reached
VOIGT, C.J., joins.
which
parties
between
plea agreement."
BURKE, Justice, specially concurring,
Herrera, 118,
party
discretion
recommendation. INMAN, Jr., Patterson
Walker (Plaintiff),
Appellant WILLIAMS, Daisha
Daisha Loraine f/k/a (Defendant). Inman, Appellee
Loraine
No. S-07-0064. Wyoming.
Supreme Court of
July15,2008.