Weedman v. State
792 P.2d 1388
Wyo.
1990
Check Treatment

*1 PP owe properly that & L did not a nothing in the record to indicate found There in this duty Ramsey instance. to knowledge of NES- John Beltz had a that place employee working beneath a CO Affirmed. employees were work- other NESCO where any knowledge he ing or that had сoncern- origin pin. of the

ing the location that none NES-

The record reflects of supervised by PP & employees were

CO’s conducted its own employees.

L NESCO a

safety meetings. Beltz John observed NESCO, certainly he

safety deficiency by obligation notify at the had the to NESCO WEEDMAN, Edward John have it supervisory level and to corrected. dam- otherwise result severe To do L or in age property of PP & severe to person happened to

injury someone’s —as The of STATE in this instance. Appellee ‍​​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌​​​​‌‌​​​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‍safety pro- Beltz’s coordination emрloyees, PP grams for & L notification beginning at

by him to contractors work Wyoming. Supreme Court of safety policies, plant special to thе contractors’ su- notification one of safety deficiency pervisors of an observed to

in connection with the contractor’s work deficiency is corrected fall far

see that (c) that in Comment

short of set out Torts, (Second) of 414 Restatement su- nеcessary to retain control of

pra, place.

work

Accordingly, nothing there was before a retention PP

the trial court to indicate the work site at the

& L of control over support an injury nothing

time of the — rule that the own- exception general ‍​​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌​​​​‌‌​​​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‍to the employee of land is not liable

er injuries independent for work

an contractor

occurring premises. trial court Yeah, at, getting say agree with I’m I don’t want to know an answer I would "A. would —I you speculate. hypothetical, that. to a I don’t want right. supervisor "Q. did not re- All If the your job responsibilities what want to know rеphrase. spond your well, said let me You you you require find dictate or do when a — changes supervisor? you suggest to that would deficiency in the same area and ask that identify the I would deficiencies "A. do, recommended, supposed you are what him. job responsibilities your at that what’s time? right. you anything "Q. do more All Do something Okay. "A. I find that I feel identify deficienciеs? than wrong, seriously stop ac- I can that individual Yes, I ask him to correct it. "A. "Q. right tion then and there. part job your is that And he—and yоu "Q. How do do that? responsibilities? through go supervisor and “A. can tell Yes, it "A. is. (Em- immediately.” stopped him I want added.) phasis Well, you right. “Q. let me ask this. All your responsibilities, regards job that's what *2 the

tencing on sexual assault conviction. modify now asks that the sentence He we credit served the give against for time give maximum both sentences and to against burglary minimum credit the tence.

This issue is controlled our P.2d recent decision in Renfro 1990). In that case retroac we trial tively eliminated the court’s deny for cases where the defendant is indi in all A gent. 785 P.2d at 498. defendant is indigent ap purposes for the considered plying if he is incarсerated due Renfro inability post the bond on offense which in the n. results sentence. P.2d at 498 in appellant The recоrd reflects post case was ‍​​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌​​​​‌‌​​​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‍bond and was this unable upon charges which result incarcerated issue ed in the sentences at here. Accord indigent as ingly, he was defined Renfro automatically entitled to credit and against both the minimum and maximum 785 P.2d at 498. sentences. decision does not direct Renfro precise question here ly address application presented, which is the unequal im concurrent sentences are when Defender, Munker, State Public Leonard argues applying The State posed. Cornia, Defender, Asst. Public Ger- Michael against burglary shorter sen Director, Gallivan, De- Wyoming ald M. appel would have no effect because tence and K. Program, Aid Donald fender longer minimum sen lant must serve the (аrgued), ap- Intern for Slaughter, Student any assault in event. for the sexual tence pellant. of cases this would majority While Gеn., R. Atty. B. Joseph Meyer, correct, possible it is that circumstances Gen., Renneisen, Mary B. Deputy Atty. longer and sentence arise where Gen., Guthrie, Atty. (argued), served, Sr. Asst. not be such commutation appellee. To is consist pardon. ensure grаnted, hold that credit should be ently C.J., THOMAS, CARDINE, and Before minimum maxi against and granted URBIGKIT, GOLDEN, and JJ. MACY concurrent sentence. mum term of eaсh entry judgment consist- Remanded CARDINE, Justice. Chief opinion. this ent with charges of bur- pled guilty Appellant He degree first sexual assault. glary J., THOMAS, dissenting. years thirty-five twelve to sentenced to was THOMAS, Justice, dissenting. eight and three to the sexual assault agree that “сredit should I cannot with the sentences burglary, for the years maxi- against the minimum and granted received concurrently. run sentеnce.” term of each concurrent for mum minimum sentence dissent. Consequently, I must prior to sen- days of time served the 170 that, remaining of con- That to be referred to the Recognizing in the instance sentences, the is no dif- must include the time that was end result ferent, firmly presentence. am convinced served *3 giv- presentence confinement should be correct rule is am satisfied only Conceptually, awarding en once. that, Wyoming, a defendant must be presentence confinement on two given confinement no from different sentences is different the minimum and maximum both awarding twice one sentencе. term, appropriately should but 368, State, v. 771 P.2d 373 Jones given only once. dissent from 1989), said, latter respect opinion awаrding cred- court double situation, presentence in- “doubling it. is well unjustified carceration credit as an abuse of unauthorized constitutes by sentencing pre- court.” to be awarded on is sentences, is

each of two concurrent how it awarded on five concurrent sentence, is on each

tences? it awarded transferring rule

how can we avoid

consecutive sentences? PARK COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY by The correct rule has been articulated COMMISSIONERS, Appellant Appeals. Florida That court Court ‍​​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌​​​​‌‌​​​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‍said: “ * * * point important is out that [I]t v. given only a dеfendant will be HODGE, Appellee Dan spent prior for the total time once

sentencing; if he is another sentenced on judge

charge the same or another Suрreme Court giv- duplicate jail credit cannot be 561, State, Lawrence v. 306 So.2d en.” 15, (emphasis original). (Fla.App.1975) 562 at thе same con Other courts have arrived State, v. 441 1052

clusion. Prichard So.2d

(Ala.Cr.App.1983); Caffey, v. 445 State (Mo.1969), 397 U.S. cert. denied

S.W.2d 1138, (1970);

996, S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 405 (Mo. v. 632 S.W.2d

Richardson carefully, the New Mexi

App.1982). Read authority. contrary

co not See cases are 788, 676 P.2d Page, 100 N.M.

State

(N.M.App.1984); 98 N.M. Ramzy, State v. (N.M.App.1982). 649 P.2d 504 sentences, it concurrent

In the case of given necessary that the defendant be

not to assure that it on bоth sentences of the sentences is

will be afforded one The time served un- or vacated.

reversed vacated sentence that is reversed or

der the remaining con- legally referable Ekberg ‍​​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌​​​​‌‌​​​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‍v. sentence or sentences. Cir.1948). (1st States, 167 F.2d 380

United (1989). Law 1582 24 C.J.S.

See Criminal