Sanchez v. State

penitentiary, having ty-four years in the to consult as- require our trial courts second-degree guilty by jury found of powers to com- been psychic trologers or invoke 6-2-104, murder in violation of W.S.1977. Rule W.R.Cr.P. ply with 10,1987, appli- appellant March filed an On Affirmed. district cation proceed He filed a motion to also pauperis appointment and for forma on March counsel. The filed a motion to dismiss and a memoran- support dum in thereof. 15,1987, grant- May the district court SANCHEZ, On Appellant

Israel Appel- motion to dismiss. (Defendant), ed State’s appeal lant’s from the order of dismissal 10,1987, July was dismissed on for want Wyoming, STATE prosecution. Wé reinstated (Plaintiff). Appellee us for July and it is now before No. 87-138. decision. presented in concern The issues this case Wyoming. appoint- the sentence after conviction and 7, 1988. June is- attorney. ment of an These identical 29, 1988.

Rehearing En Banc Denied June Whitney sues were considered (1987), and decided ad- position appellant versely to the required by pronouncements our case. As Sanchez, pro se. Israel Whitney the doctrine of stare deci- sis, Gen., Atty. W. Joseph Meyer, B. John Gen., Renneisen, Deputy Atty. and Karen affirm. We Gen., appellee. Atty. Asst. Byrne,

A. MACY, JJ., each URBIGKIT THOMAS, BROWN, C.J., Before dissenting opinions. separate filed MACY, CARDINE, JJ. URBIGKIT URBIGKIT, Justice, dissenting. CARDINE, Justice. Whitney appel- is from the denial litigant brief benefit petition for lant Israel Sanchez’s review, of this court majority ing or presented for our relief. The issues determined appellant’s sen- determination are whether post-convic not be considered punish- tence constitutes cruel and unusual 7-14-101 et process review “good not accrue to ment in that time” will as stated by defining conviction W.S.1977 sentence below reduce his maximum entry of the crimi statute to exclude twenty-two required minimum sentence of the time constraints sentence. Under nal years and whether his constitutional con opinion existed to release by failure of process was violated to due currently attorney to appoint court to an the district and represent him the dis a more extended this decision improvident. Since sent was affirm. We same constitutional again raises the analysis is concepts, expanded 14, 1984, appel- statutory February By order filed problems penumbra justified for the of not less to a term lant was sentenced presented.1 twenty-two years nor more than twen- adjourned. legislative As effec- session originally the 1988 circulated before 1. This dissent was decisis, recognition appar- analysis stare it is this court’s exclusion of sen- deny is to tencing questions ent that Sanchez now intended in relief previously right of counsel validated in the under the state and federal constitutions Alberts, Long, and Fondren v. precedential find in Even if any jurisdiction other with similar segments out constitutional issues of court dures. the Certainly exclusionary ap- subject presenta- be proach, except under the Rule 36 method- 36, W.R.Cr.P.,2 by tion in state court Rule ology, in a on denial of constitu- Alberts, Long, and counsel under Fondren questions tional in appointed required as in should be proceedings involving sentences, is not vali- proceedings to establish whether by processes, dated federal 28 U.S.C. issues considered other should 2255, 2241 and nor statutory post- §§ Otherwise, and resolved. the is conviction, corpus habeas and coram nobis magnified by is what now before Yackle, error in writs of state courts. for initial contest on decision where sen- Remedies, Post-conviction 38 at 169 § tencing is made then when (1981). See also Morgan, United States v. filed, argument petition the 346 U.S. L.Ed. presented by the State that it is a second (1954). (See foreclosed. illustrative, As the ABA clearly standard pending before Kallas encompasses post- the sentence the within court.) requested Denial of counsel when process: conviction relief indigent for “A proceeding should be under Constitution in sen- sufficiently broad to relief: tencing only ignore would not “(a) for challenging meritorious claims recognized the statute as in Alberts and judgments of conviction and in- Long, rights but excise constitutional cluding cognizable claims: process provided Con- stitution Art. and the § “(i) that the conviction was obtained or guaranteed accused defend with counsel imposed sentence in violation of the 1, 10, well Art. as the nondiscrimi- Constitution of the States United or operation implicit natory law as Art. the constitution or laws of the state in 34. rendered; judgment which the however, “(ii) divisively, More as first applicant that the was convicted Whitney repeated, and as now this court statute that is in violation of renders an issue briefed the Constitution of the United States appeal. relegates judicial atten- or constitution the state in responsibili- rendered, tion to what be judgment should counsel or that ty, including analysis. My research and applicant the conduct for which the tive June Ch. S.L. 2. Rule W.R.Cr.P. was amended March effective, be provi- was enacted. 1987 to effective June 1987. For current When the new (1987 Cum.Supp.). text see Rule W.R.Cr.P. post sions as amendments to the conviction Rule W.R.Cr.P. stated: singularly coverage relief statutes reduce may illegal “The court any correct sentence at protections available. may imposed time and correct sentence appears text This new to have no coun- illegal provided in an manner within the time terparts jurisdiction. any in the laws of other herein the reduction of sentence. The Constitutional to be issues involved whether may reduce sentence within 120 Young Ragen, this means that the 337 U.S. days receipt after court of mandate (1949) 93 L.Ed. 1333 upon judgment issued affirmance of the or Nebraska, Case v. appeal, days dismissal of the or within 120 exhaustion criteria has been entry any judgment after order or of the briefing proper left eliminated will be having upholding effect of Consequent- future cases. of conviction. The court

ly, past compared little can be with what upon also reduce a sentence revocation aof in the future will remain. probation provided law.” constitutionally ment of prosecuted pro- the omnibus treatment and resolu- tected; post-conviction inquiries tion of all complete one Stan- “(in) rendering judg- final 18.3, dard National Prosecution Standards jurisdiction over the ment was without (National Association) Attorneys District or the person applicant subject (1st 1977). ed. matter; remedy The Wyoming for violation of “(iv) imposed that the sentence exceed- rights (post-conviction-relief by or ed the maximum authorized law statute), 63, 1961, of Wyoming Ch. S.L. otherwise in accordance with the Ill, sponsored by attorneys two in H.B. law; by sentence authorized passed major in the session without “(v) there evidence of that exists mate- change legisla- not until the recent not, and rial facts which were in the tive significantly session been amended diligence of exercise could not except provi- passage since initial in modest been, presented theretofore have relating right to sion to a 1987 proceedings leading in the to heard Digest of of recodification. the House and that conviction now 111, Representatives, p. House Bill 357. require vacation of the conviction or State, supra See v. sentence; State, supra. The statute was “(vi) significant there that has been originally response Young enacted v. law, change in or whether substantive 235, 1073, 69 93 Ragen, 337 U.S. S.Ct. applied process procedural, lead- L.Ed. 1333 similar decisions ing applicant’s or conviction sen- Supreme the United States Court. See reason tence where sufficient exists to Nebraska, 336, v. 381 Case application of the allow retroactive (1965). text, 14 422 In the standard; changed legal the bill followed Illinois “(b) challenging for meritorious claims statute, entitled Ch. 38 legality of restraint custody the or based Ill.Ann.Stat., 122-1 en- et and since conviction, including upon a legislature acted Illinois has the fully claims that sentence has been largely except remained unamended served or that there has been unlawful change limiting years years five to 20 parole probation revocation or or con- explicate apparent of ade- ABA ditional release.” IV Standards for quacy Constitu- under the United States Justice, 22-2.1 at 22.- Criminal Standard history of significance tion.3 of the 16. examination Additionally, the direction this now jurisdiction an absence of derivation shows antagonistic any justification present takes is to the recommenda- court’s for disparate tion of the National Association of Prosecu- treatment of consti- for Any goal inquiry. tutional case tors for whom desired achieve- remedy post-conviction-relief legislation supposes adequate history some state 3. The concurring opinion recognize related in of Justice exists. We the difficulties Nebraska, supra, in Case v. 381 U.S. at which Illinois Court is faced Clark 337-338, procedures adapting 85 S.Ct. at: state to [this] available Nevertheless, require- requirement_ however, out, pointed "It should be that as Young supra, Ragen, at ment met.’ v. must be Young early Ragen, v. as 1949 Court at 238-239 "Thereafter, S.Ct. [69 1074-1075]. 1333], L.Ed. U.S. 235 S.Ct. 93 [69 Hear- the Illinois Post-Conviction principle that the States must articulated adopted. It was followed Act was ‘clearly prisoners defined afford some method passage Carolina in 1951 of a statute North they claims of which raise denial Mil- Illinois Act. Id., which was ‘modeled’ rights.' at 1074- [69 federal at Holohan, v. N.C. 74 S.E.2d ler compare Mooney v. But 1075]. (1953). is the State Nebraska seventh L.Ed. 791] U.S. 103 [55 Ragen, Young adopt a statute since stating such proposition noted: * * * remedies, supra. [Fn. 3] state "The doctrine exhaustion of Maine, Oregon Wyo- Maryland, required scrupu- ‘‘[Fn. 3] ming to which this Court has ** legislation. *.” passed pre- similar federal courts lous adherence all ... precedent, nearly Furthermore, as now continued for support no for this sen- years passage tencing after initial in Illinois and withdrawal is found in Wyoming years state, precedent. since enacted in this case lacking statute enacted as Ch. decision. S.L. of People Wyoming, Dale, 406 Ill. 92 N.E.2d 761 “AN ACT to grounds remedy per- overruled on other sub nom. Peo sons imprisoned convicted and pen- Warr, ple v. 54 Ill.2d 298 N.E.2d 164 itentiary, who rights guaran- assert that Banks, People 49 Ill.2d teed to them the Constitution of the Jackson, N.E.2d People United States or Wyoming, the State of Ill.2d 265 N.E.2d 622 People v. both, or have been denied or violated in Bilyeu, Ill.App.3d 57 Ill.Dec. proceedings in they were convict- (1981); People Placek, 429 N.E.2d 912 ed,” Ill.App.3d 2 Ill.Dec. 357 N.E.2d appeals during matured 15 the next 26 and (1976); People 660 Logan, Ill.App.3d v. 39 years 1987). one-half (through Assuming 350 N.E.2d average opinion approxi- case load of 97 51 L.Ed.2d 807 mately per year, 100 this would demon- Chellew, People v. Ill.App.3d 20 313 strate that approxi- N.E.2d 284 People Hoffman, v. 25 mately percent six-tenths of one Ill.App.3d 322 N.E.2d 865 appellate work Wyo- encountered People Barney, Ill.App.2d 180, ming Supreme cases, Court. In those re- (1967).4 N.E.2d 481 granted lief was to the defendant in one It recognized should be challenge appeal, and one case trial-court-granted facially constitutional sentence as con- Otherwise, was reversed. trial-court- invalid, tended to be substantially affirmed, denied relief was usually most on likely post-conviction-relief first arise ap- procedural, distinguished from a sub- peal. Consequently, I find this decision stantive basis. indigenously and specifically contrary to In Albert v. 466 P.2d object be served Young Ragen, reh. (1970), denied 468 P.2d although when, supra by present limitation, this five-year expired, limitation had arbitrarily court deletes the in- sentence court determined that there was no consti- quiry. The result obviously also self-de- deprivation tutional joint from a and con- feating since, axiomatically, flicting representation ineffectiveness issue. A trial tran- of counsel script provided matured as a for an actual hear- clearly ing held post-conviction. defined contention on by In Boggs defend- Lacking ant. precedential logical involving basis and three-year justification delay in commencement for this limitation of the consti- charges, criminal the amended remedy, tutional I would reverse this case ascertained require appointment of counsel for fur- court to “conclusory” preventing any proceedings what, ther to see if any, validly speedy-trial review in relief. issues, defined including the constitutionali- These litigation two cases were the for the ty might be raised in first decade. amended review the trial The next provided: decade act, following 4. The existent portunity for this since sentences are precedent, Illinois as well as the soon to be clearly scope included within the of the consti- change, effective 1988 is dissimilar from the Likewise, tutional to be reviewed. Act, initial 1955 Uniform Post-Conviction Relief rules, federal law and which in- U.L.A., 550, p. Vol. 9B or the more recent mod- procedures clude Rule F.R.Cr.P. similar to version, ernized U.L.A. Vol. Uniform Post- 36, W.R.Cr.P., Wyoming Rule an attack on a Act, Conviction Procedure 1966 revised Act in challenge sentence as a constitutional is avail- appendices 1980 Post-Conviction Procedures able under statute as well as rule. See 28 U.S.C. Act, p. any 233. Under version of the Uniform § 2255. acts, terminology included op- would not afford (1971): in State, Wyo., sentence Teton filing volving in “attorney misunderstanding.” another belated volving pled degree, to second a homicide untimely This court determined years of 20 life. resulting sentence jurisdictional had conse Although noted that statu quently relief was not avail years ex tory time limitation of five had able, though even counsel mistake concern pired, it also addressed about an good existed. not be The case would adequate plea and basis for the determined today by Lucey, law virtue of Evitts v. Colling shown. that voluntariness was 387, 105 U.S. 83 L.Ed.2d reh. wood v. denied 470 U.S. denied Hoggatt (1973): pled defendant to a (1980): reversal of P.2d deni charge stealing vehicle from his fa al of relief wherein the ther, and trial plea record did demonstrate that a permit testify, would not the father al ever been entered the defendant. Dicta though called other witnesses were for evi suggested in the case actually dence a crime had oc whether process questions could not be considered State, Wyo., curred. Escobedo v. post-conviction-relief petitions. York v. (1979): not a (1980): accommo held, in responding case. to the dated a denial of attempted appeal of who to ob defendant of plea the trial court from contentions transcript, tain a that bargain adequacy of the pro violation and requested not and that Rule W.R. ceedings preliminary plea. Substantive process, Cr.P. correction of sentence would disposition: for relief was demon no basis indigent for an transcript not strated. Maschner, Wyo., defendant. Munoz v. During the third decade of the statute: (1979): stealing misdemeanor for guilt gasoline, by prior on mis enhanced a McCutcheon v. felony status,

demeanor to achieve result (1982): evidentiary search raised penitentiary confinement. The ma following appeal; trial and direct affirmed. jority concluded that a constitutional issue post-conviction, court held On that by any not assertion was raised of trial judicata, prior appeal were res issues that, irregularities, though even not also retrial would that guilty-plea arrange case from a occurred changed Morgan v. the result. ment, fore was (1985): Wyo., pled defendant P.2d issue submitted should closed because the larceny alleged mischarge. and later ap post-plea have been resolved earlier majority The held that peal. allege deprivation did a con charge right, only could stitutional and this State, Wyo., Next followed Johnson post-convic appeal raised on for which P.2d denied 442 U.S. Justice Thomas tion was a substitute. (1979): L.Ed.2d 300 as to complaint apprising that concurred appeal, some issues raised claim, analysis of the record did state but applied judicata determined that res from transcript that the ele demonstrated in the appeal. trial and affirmed Other charged appropri ments of the crime were appeal issues not considered on previously presented arraignment. ately at Matlack factually were considered as not sustained Wyo., cert. denied justify in a fashion relief re sufficient 87 L.Ed.2d 472 U.S. sulting in of the trial-court de affirmation entered, (1985): guilty plea was Berger, Wyo., nial of relief. State compliance post-conviction relief raised (1979): trial-court 600 P.2d 708 provisions of Rule W.R.Cr.P. with granting appeal in finding no was answered by the reversed this court ed state and at presence of the defendant denied failure. about a post-conviction-relief hearing question was de mined that the of the constitution- Hopkinson v. nied. State ex rel. District al nature of a sentence could be con- Court, County, Wyo., Teton sidered under Rule W.R.Cr.P. and not 88 post-conviction. Diefenderfer (1985): joint L.Ed.2d 155 habeas-cor- was dismissed on pus/post-conviction-relief longer no basis that he was in confine- Affirming a death sentence. the trial court ment and juris- not within the denial, approved the conclusion diction of relief. This court ancillary and con only case substantively, considered one judge sequently change peremp was not Pote v. Wyo., 733 P.2d 1018 general torily permitted. level of is trial-court-disqualifica- which revisited the pending presented sues are now in a Tenth Hopkinson, tion issue earlier considered Circuit United States review of a District result, with the determining same evidentiary Court decision. The ultimate peremptory right change judges did not validity more appropriately will be re exist, and other was not bias demonstrated future time. Bibbins v. viewed judge. the trial This elucidation must (1985): Wyo., negotiated 696 P.2d 1300 grandiose rank as one of the more conclu- guilty plea first tested sionary critiques court of appealed relief was denied and with deci stating, current allegations time in “naked sion of that a affirmation formal unsupported by” conclusions factual required. was not The record reflected did, material. Id. at 1022. The court how- plea, voluntariness of and factual basis of ever, complaints against challenged the 25 consider the was not sentence of petition. demonstrated considerably case more life and determined Wyoming Supreme returned to the Court in acceptable the result to be under Solem v. Bibbins v. Helm, summary that only one (1983), although noting the post-conviction proceeding permitted proportionality failure to raise of sentence by Wyoming statute. Price v. on direct raising would be a bar to it (1986): again post-con not a in proceeding. all; result, viction relief case at confused foregoing constitutes 26 and one- but accommodated comment Justice year half record of relief in Thomas that Wyoming in of a initially utilization statute one, if remedy, “Price’s he has is to seek passed to confine discussion to state courts reduction or pur- correction of sentence in contravention of incarcerated individ suant to Rule W.R.Cr.P. Alternately, usage corpus ual’s of habeás in federal pursue he could (Then Raper Attorney General provided by 7-14-101 et W.S. § court), and later to become Justice of this 332, Thomas, J., dissenting. 1977.” Id. at Remedies, Wyo. Post-Conviction Relief actual issue was belated and a (1964). Probably L.J. 213 legal more real Lucey, Evitts v. consideration of effect of activity case, Osborn v. in one occurred supra. Schillinger, F.Supp. (D.Wyo.1986), recently, More in addition to the 1987 by-passed really which Wyoming Bibbins, supra, rerun of 741 P.2d procedure venue, and went to federal than opinions court considered released in combined, in all the other cases supra; excluding Hop death-penalty cases of supra, supra; Fondren ad- supra (and kinson v. Hopkin- related dressing only right the issue to counsel cases), Engberg son at a before trial court. In supra, Whitney as a case, pend predecessor to briefing presentation, inquiry extended issue we extended declined to counsel, (No. 87-15). right address the and deter- justification by prece- durally abrogated proceeding I one do find with the Nowhere probable result minimal reservoir of two more are invited dent My premised affixing adaptation to the follow. dissent is within decisions judicial economy the context of statute that constitu- efficiency. dural What we do leads no- tionality no matter what to the where benefit of a unified one-time entry, period of time after initial can under Rule W.R.Cr.P. be considered I would first conclude that sentences un- recognition of the dual der the appropri- Kallas v. statute should

problems now evidenced ately subject (now supra pending before this relief, be other is- court), provident it to consider the would be case, Additionally sues. if is it by appel- questions briefed and submitted relief, right there is a lant in this case: counsel, and if it is not re- “THE APPELLANT RE- SENTENCE lief, petitioner then is not foreclosed AMOUNTS TO CRUEL AND CEIVED presenting post-conviction-re- both another IN VIOLA- UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT instituting lief remedial de- TION OP THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT mand under Rule 36 for curative action THE TO UNITED STATES CONSTITU- against what contended to be an uncon- TION AND ARTICLE OP THE apparent, stitutional It if sentence. one WYOMING CONSTITUTION. contemplates the substantive issue involved “APPELLANT WAS DENIED DUE relationship of maximum sentence to THE PROCESS BY THE FAILURE OF legislative primacy in branch determination APPOINT AN DISTRICT COURT TO department pri- of sentences and executive IN ATTORNEY TO REPRESENT HIM macy good pa- time and POST-CONVICTION RELIEF.” Duffy role, that our decision arguments, Appellee considered those two I dis- and, anticipating Whitney part, added sented, actually dispositive. Although I contention that: not receded from the stat- views there “APPELLANT’S CLAIM IS NOT COG- otherwise, ed, majority determined NIZABLE UNDER POST- WYOMING’S this fact is noted to illustrate how much CONVICTION RELIEF ACT 7-14-101 time, effort, and cost to both TO 7-14-108 W.S. 1977.” counsel and this court would be saved argument preclu- The thrust brief is an immediate on a substantive sion results virtue of the to be disingenuous basis rather and ham- subject considered on which is a pering disposition on a revela- comprehensively that has been considered tion. Cutbirth by this writer in dissent appointment I would remand for the (1988). counsel under resulting The vice of the statute order to afford the trial court the self- case as a status should be and, appropriate, if obligation this court the that, question, evident opportunity to resolve and settle constitu Fondren, Alberts, Long the denial by the tional issues raised incarcerated — Aiken, appointment in error. If it prisoner. Yates v. of counsel was U.S. -, said that the is not one (1988), is to be 98 L.Ed.2d 546 invok S.Ct. Yates, supports the mandated of coun- State 280 S.C. S.E.2d sel, not, effect, it is (1982), then Yates v. (1983); to Rule

tion-relief Preclusion 77 L.Ed.2d 1356 S.Ct. unconstitutionality Aiken, 36 consideration of U.S. Franklin, Francis v. gen- (1985); denies 307, 105 post-conviction-relief statute. Conse- 85 L.Ed.2d 344 eral Montana, Sandstrom v. U.S. quently, this court does little service 61 L.Ed.2d 39 judicial economy since we have now Aiken, Yates appellant 290 S.C. S.E.2d 84 pro- — (1986), -, granted ceedings. 94 L.Ed.2d 788 and and P.2d 547 Elmore, State v. 308 S.E.2d S.C. adequately should demonstrate admirably substantive

preferable to a career invocation of contin procedural litigation.

ued

MACY, Justice, dissenting. The district court erred

I dissent. when attorney appoint represent

it failed to

Case Details

Case Name: Sanchez v. State

Court Name: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date Published: Jun 7, 1988

Citation: 755 P.2d 245

Docket Number: 87-138

Court Abbreviation: Wyo.