*1 671 records, by any or of find federal authori the usual methods for 563 N.W.2d 533. We Chaves, concluding determining identity. 604 ty persuasive W.R.Cr.P. P.2d at principle a central of the erimi- 48 "vindicates justice system" concerning a defendant's

nal case; felony sentencing in a a presence at CONCLUSION principle "per is se particular violation of that Abeyta failed to demonstrate has "presence of prejudicial" and absence prosecutorial misconduct. His conviction for judging not a factor in the viola prejudice is battery against a household member is af Torres-Palma, 290 tion." United States firmed, but we remand to the district court (10th Cir.2002). 1244,1248 F.3d re-sentencing Abeyta was not present sentencing hearing. at the CONVICTIONS PriO® ^[126] Abeyta argues that the State any proof that he had been provide

failed to battery against of a

previously convicted required by Wyo.

household member as Stat. 6-2-501(£)(i) §

Ann. enhance sentence disposition felony.

to a Given our of issue, waiver we need not reach the merits 2003WY137. that where this issue. we note BYRD, Appellant Ronald Howard alleged in to seek prior convictions are order (Defendant), sentence, questions a two enhancement of presented. first is generally fact are judgment pertinent prior whether a has been MAHAFFEY, Linda Lee Linda f/k/a rendered, and the second whether (Plaintiff). Byrd, Appellee Lee person prior judgment in the is the named No. 02-261. presently before the court. Chavez accused State, 1350 cert. Supreme Wyoming. Court of denied, 64 446 U.S. S.Ct. (1980). Singer v. L.Ed.2d 841 See also Unit Oct. States, (C.C.A.3), F. cert. ed

denied, 258 U.S. 66 L.Ed. S.Ct. (1922). Prior can

[T27] convictions documentary evidence through

established copies

such as the admission of authenticated records, prison admission of authenticated judgments

copies of of conviction and sen Wyoming courts

tence from courts or from states, by

in other the admission and use of records,

copies prison fingerprint of certified

byor a defendant's admission of such convie- Chavez, 1350; 604 P.2d at

tions. Waxler Wyo. identity

Evidence of can be the form of

admission or confession the defendant,

photographs, places, similar birth dates security

similar social numbers or other iden numbers, fingerprint

tification certified cards finger testified to

from arrests defendant, print classifier to be those

testimony prison to his official relative *2 HILL, C.J., GOLDEN,

Before LEHMAN, KITE, VOIGT, JJ. LEHMAN, Justice. Byrd appeals Ronald Howard allowing

district his counsel court's decision him representing of record to withdraw from to trial. also contests the district grant subsequent court's refusal him a review, Upon continuance of trial date. ' we affirm. ISSUES following forth iésues sets appeal: on I. Did the trial court commit reversible error when it allowed counsel (8) eight days to withdraw business before trial? appel-

II. Did the trial court's denial of lant's motion for continuance obtain new counsel after the court had allowed counsel shortly require to withdraw before trial reversal?

Appellee formerly Mahaffey, Linda Lee Byrd, phrases known as Linda Lee the issues as: Appellant

1. estopped Whether from raising appeal pre- issues on that were not by proper served in the district court ob- jection exeeption.

2. Whether the district court committed granting reversible error in the motion for Appellant's counsel to withdraw. the district court Whether committed in denying Appellant's reversible error mo- tion for a continuance. Appellee's

4. Whether substitute State- Evidence, adopted ment of the which was court, timely filed. FACTS1 Cornia, Representing Appellant: Mike Ev- anston, WY. Complaint A Divorce was filed

Representing Appellee: Decker Stan Can- 2, 2001, by Mahaffey Beckwith, Lemich, Greenhalgh, answering non of complaint Stith June Cannon, P.C., Springs, & Rock On district court WY. June scheduled fore, transcript any proceedings 1. No was made of the statement of facts herein is based on the including hearings. the trial and motions There- court record. cases, In criminal the withdrawal 2001. This date of coun trial for November by order of the district based sel, trial, vacated particularly on the eve of joint implicate due-process motion filed due on a considerations January father. On the death defendant's to effective assistance Epperson Wyo., the district court rescheduled the counsel. *3 16, May for 2002. date (1981); Adger v. Wyo., P.2d 671 584 (1978). However, cases, P.2d 1056 in civil 26, 2002, counsel for April On [¶4] always pro of counsel withdrawal does hearing A on filed a motion to withdraw. grounds granting vide for the of a continu 3,May for 2002. this motion was scheduled Annot., 1155, ance. 48 A.L.R.2d however, Ultimately, Byrd, appear. did not " withdrawal, trial, on 'The the eve of granted court the motion with attorney for an one 14, 2002, Byrd a motion May filed draw. On action, leaving party unprepared such denied, to continue trial. The motion was trial, ipso ground is not facto a culmi and trial commenced " Benson, continuance. . . .' Benson v. 66 granting nating with the district (1949). 94, 816, Nev. 204 P.2d subject dividing the marital divorce and Particularly relevant to the matters with appeal This followed. property. appeal which we are concerned in this holding this court's STANDARDOF REVIEW may deny "... the trial court a Honan, v. 809 P.2d Honan [¶5] gives problem continuance if the which recognized: 786-87 request rise to the for a continuance is authority to The district court has the party moving the fault of the for the litigation. That control the course of a Craver, supra, continuance." Craver v. grant power includes the discretion to con- 601P.2d at 1000. tinuances, upon either its own motion or Bacon, 669 P.2d at 585. parties, a motion one of the and to This court has further clarified: [¶7] attorney's grant an to withdraw. The trial court has broad discretion Haberman, Bromley (Wyo. v. 588 P.2d 708 1978); (1988); granting denying of a motion for contin § Wyo.Stat. 1-9-102 Rules uance; and, a manifest absent abuse Rules for the 102 and 201 Uniform discretion, reviewing court will not dis Wyoming. District Courts of the State of Craver, ruling. Wyo., turb such Craver The district court must exercise its discre- (1979); Holly Sugar Corp. v. P.2d justice. way promotes tion in a See (1978). Perez, Wyo., 508 P.2d 595 To find Bromiley, 588 P.2d 708. discretion, the refusal must be abuse added.) (Emphasis We have further indicat arbitrary deny appellant pro as to due so concerning issues the withdrawal of ed that cess, upon appellant rests and the burden counsel and continuances are matters prove prejudice actual violation trial are left to the sound discretion of the Co., Carey Wyo., rights. Bacon v. appeal upset court and will not be absent 588; Spurlock, 161 P.2d State v. Mont. of discretion. Bacon a demonstrated abuse (1973). 506 P.2d 842 Co., Carey (Wyo.1983). 669 P.2d at the cir peculiar On review we look only is found when a An abuse of discretion of the case and the reasons cumstances court acts in a manner which exceeds the judge at the time of presented to the under the circumstances. bounds of reason Sarafite, request. Ungar 376 U.S. trial court The ultimate issue is whether the 841, 11 L.Ed.2d reh. 84 S.Ct. reasonably conclude as it did. The could 1218, 12 84 S.Ct. denied 377 U.S. of the trial court will not be reversed decision L.Ed.2d 217 proof of such abuse. Jensen v. Fre absent Inc., (Wyo. Cody, Eddy, 915-16 mont Motors WY Cates v. 1988). ¶¶ 13-14, (Wyo.2002). 1113-14 Finally, this court has declared: also stated: We have important find that it is for this of an or his dis We Withdrawal by Byrd on give party court to address the issues raised charge in a civil case does not 1) they appeal are fundamental right to a continuance. Gru an absolute Co., they specific nature inasmuch as due Railroad newald Missouri concern Pacific Cir.1964). (8th though 2) Even 331 F.2d 983 questions, they are issues that process following have to arise the modification of of the continuance continue the denial seriously appellant, the sit Rules for District Courts of the inconvenienced Uniform 102(c) (U.R.D.C.), making Wyoming uation due to his own State of Rule Therefore, recognizing special is a factor to be considered. exist, cireumstances we choose to attend to weigh Many jurisdictions brought ap court on the issues before this against prompt admin to counsel *4 peal, recently Joyner, dictated in at as most Annmot., justice. of 78 A.L.R.3d istration judge trial court is better able to 725. The matter, is more conversant with local the of Counsel Withdrawal docket, conditions, the and the status of general setting of the frequently not embalmed more familiar with the P.2d 500 (1987); see, ord. Absent capacity and cretion, this court will not interfere. State Hathaway, Randolph v. disposition of counsel. a clear abuse of 224 Iowa situation, Hays, Wyo., background the formal ree- 276 N.W. 207 judicial which is It is dis and Byrd complains that mitted reversible error when fore nary counsel to withdraw district court erred because no "extraordi drawal of counsel 102(c). trial. cireumstances" ^[112] In Specifically, Byrd argues addition, Byrd In his first eight pursuant the district court com existed business issue on asserts to allow with it allowed his U.R.D.C. that days that the appeal, be Carlson, Id. at 916. case of Carlson v. 836 P.2d (Wyo.1992) discloses this court's directive DISCUSSION practice" require the "better is to that counsel not unless be allowed withdraw Appealable Issues entry other counsel has made a written of Initially, Mahaffey contests [T9] appearance except extraordinary cireum- failed to raise to the district stances. presented the issues now did Rule for District [¶13] Uniform Courts object rulings. to the district court's pertinent part, provides following: Thus, Mahaffey pre contends that (a)(1) attorney appears An in a case: bringing up ap cluded from these issues on (A) By attending any proceeding as peal. any party; counsel for expressed We have often is (B) By permitting attorney's appeal gen sues raised for the first time on appear any pleadings name to or erally by will not be considered this court motions, attorney except that an who they jurisdictional unless are or issues of preparation plead- assisted of a they such a fundamental nature that must be ing appears and whose name on the State, Joyner considered. 2002 WY pleading having done so shall not ¶ 13, (Wyo.2002); 58 P.3d Robinson appear- be deemed to have entered an Pacificorp, (Wyo.2000); 10 P.3d matter; ance in the or Enterprises, City Cheyenne, WW Inc. v. (C) By appearance. Except a written (Wyo.1998). 956 P.2d We have also case, entry in a criminal a written it appropriate made clear that it is for us to limited, may by appearance its emerge address issues are bound to terms, particular proceeding to a or ¶ 13; again Joyner, if left unresolved. matter. Rocky Mountain Oil & Gas Ass'n v. McQuire (2) (Wyo.1982); Exeept by 645 P.2d as otherwise limited McGuire, (Wyo.1980). entry appearance, appear- written attorney ing rep- shall be considered as provides attorney or firm who has resenting party for whom appeared appeal in a cause on may with- attorney appears purposes. for all draw from it without written consent of the

court filed with the clerk. Such consent may upon be conditioned substitution of (c) permitted Counsel will not be to with- other counsel." Uniform District except upon draw from a case court order. require Court Rules do not that substi- Except extraordinary in the case of cir- tute counsel be obtained before the court cumstances, the court shall condition attorney. allows withdrawal of an How- upon withdrawal of counsel the substitu- ever, practice, a better and one that will appear- tion of other counsel written presented, avoid the difficulties here alternative, ance. the court shall would be to condition withdrawal allow withdrawal a statement submit- prac- substitution of new counsel. This acknowledging ted the client the with- tice would avoid the waste time and client, stating drawal of counsel for the resources that occur in a case such proceed pro attorney se. An desire Nevertheless, permit- as this. the order appearance who has entered a limited shall ting withdrawal be deemed to have withdrawn when permissible under the rules for dis- attorney has fulfilled the lim- duties of the *5 trict courts. entry appearance. ited added.) (Emphasis added.) Carlson, 802, (Emphasis In at this Carlson, Upon [¶14] our review of we court stated: acknowledge recognition our of "a better review the record to determine We practice" support and continue to prof the whether the district court abused its dis- suggestion fered noted therein. refusing cretion to set aside the default recognize suggestion we further such is not judgment against appellant. entered On mandatory, particularly when it is noted that 31, 1991, January grant- the district court 1) opinion published our Carlson was ed Mrs. Carlson's motion for a trial new to pertinent the 19983enactment of the modi phase litigation the first between 2) provisions 102(c), fied of U.R.D.C. parties. setting these The notice of for the acknowledges applicability the clear of that 183, new trial was filed on March 1991. specific language rule and the utilized within thereafter, 25, Very shortly on March provided by rule. the As the modified rule 1991, a to consent withdrawal of counsel Carlson, and our statements the district signed which Carl had was filed with the merely court had to condition withdrawal of judge district court. The district sent Carl counsel the of other substitution coun 1991, a letter on March which informed appearance sel written extraordi unless him that he should seek new "as counsel nary circumstances existed. we possible" soon as has "[this case must review this action to if determine "ex lingering been in court since and I traordinary whereby cireumstances" existed 14, 1991, keep May intend to as the trial the district court could allow the withdrawal date." of counsel without the condition aof written permitting The order Carl's counsel to substitution of other counsel. April just withdraw was filed on little a month over before the scheduled Byrd Counsel for [¶15] conditioned his specific for withdrawal on facts. trial. The district court entered its order replacement Byrd's before counsel had keep entered an These facts included refusal to appearance practice. which is not a appointments telephone messages favored and return 102(c) Rule of the Uniform Rules for the after had authorized his counsel to addition, Wyoming District Courts of the agreement. State enter into an In provides permitted through will not be to "[clounsel declined to execute his counsel the except upon subject withdraw from a case court agree deed that was to the earlier contrast, ment, order." only eventually Rule 19.02 of the and such deed was Wyoming of Appellate by Byrd through Rules Procedure executed the efforts of Ma- such, recognizing See with counsel Rule of Professional Conduct haffey. As Wyoming May 1.16, for in the matter trial was set emt. 8. that, given 2002, counsel concluded matter was initi Additionally, this him and to communicate unwillingness May 2001. On June ated on Mahaffey,counsel dealings with Byrd's direct for November initially scheduled prepare for trial and appropriately could by order This date was then vacated Byrd's interests. protect the joint motion filed on a based Byrd's father. On Janu the death of Further, transcripts due to although no the case, court rescheduled ary the district in this proceedings made of the were Hence, this Byrd failed to trial date does reflect the record year in for over one had the or matter been and obstructed reasonably cooperate case, placed of this at time that trial was derly progression the district actually held. In very position. in a difficult his counsel deed, court entered although the district facts, cannot con these Under support, spousal temporary order constitute situation did not clude that Mahaffey as payments to make refused required "extraordinary circumstances" Byrd did not that order. required under 102(c). Accordingly, we hold under U.R.D.C. discovery requests, requiring cooperate with dis court did not abuse its by Mahaffey filed compel to be a motion allowing Byrd's counsel to with cretion Mahaffey attempt obtain forcing above, jurisdictions many As noted draw. requested documentation some the actions of including Wyoming consider party. After the district through a third contrib whether these actions appellant, to execute a stipulated order court entered hand, weigh uted to the situation mari concerning primary quitclaim deed against to counsel resolving tempo property tal real estate justice. It is also prompt administration *6 issues, Byrd delayed support rary spousal trial court is better able recognized that the Therefore, it becomes of the deed. execution matter, judge the is more conversant to actions, con Byrd, by his own apparent that docket, conditions, and the status of local counsel's to withdraw. to his tributed counsel, disposition of and is capacity and been points pressing of Professional Conduct actual somewhat restrained reasons for counsel's out that counsel ^[117] to the district court Mahaffey 1.16 from by Wyoming Rule also Byrd may with requested each of the accurately fully ex have fore, more familiar with the presumptions eral quently not embalmed Cates setting Eddy, grant in this case. the district situation, background and in the formal record. at 915-16. There court these same which is fre gen Additionally, Byrd complains that rule, an that while drawal. Under allowing his counsel court order allowing order withdraw the district must obtain a court by solely expressions support to withdraw is based appearing in an action and al after basis, "good existed court that cause" adequate counsel request with an such order, is different than entry of the keep confidential must also be careful "extraordinary finding of cir might requisite facts and not disclose facts certain 102(c). by called for U.R.D.C. against his client. cumstances" prejudice the court the district court for confidentiality Byrd and also criticizes between an artful balance findings of fact identifying its particularly for withdrawal providing adequate basis ruling allowing reasoning supporting its by requesting to and obtained counsel must be Byrd's counsel.2 Never the withdrawal lawyer's general statements A withdraw. record, theless, upon review of the require ter we find considerations professional reasonably court could ordinarily that the district have representation mination of extraordinary cireuamstances by concluded accepted the court as sufficient. should be sometimes even critical in Certainly, specific most welcome and of the find- the enumeration fact, reasoning, ings appellate of law and conclusions review. this court's ruling by support of its is a district court in made by requested may appear through to allow the withdrawal and existed defend his attor- ney pro se. counsel. Honan, at T87. Byrd also infers that based [¥21] interpretation opinion of our in upon his JAG in cireumstances this case are Servs., 2002 WY much different than those that existed in Family Dep't ¶ ¶ it Honan; we, therefore, do not find the hold ing Here, upon in that case to incumbent the district court to ensure dispositive. hearing that the on the motion to withdraw Byrd present represent was his own inter reported. as counsel was while a ests at trial and made a motion for continu transcript proceedings may have Byrd ance before the district court. proved helpful making to this court its concerning extended notice his counsel's mo review, placed such a burden should not be tion to withdraw. hearing The withdrawal Certainly, given the district court. days date, was held before the actual trial Byrd prejudiced by fact that believed he was provided notice of the withdraw, ruling allowing his counsel to many Further, trial date months advance. arranged bring he could have such issues although the record before this court is limit again before the district court for review ed, it does indicate that knew of his Yet, having proceedings such recorded. counsel's withdrawal to the trial date Byrd failed to take such actions. because he filed a motion for a continuance appeared at trial with his file that he had Finally, Byrd argues the rea obtained from his withdrawn counsel. Honan, soning utilized this court was also allowed to participate in the trial applied P.2d at must be this case. In representing his own interests after the dis Honan, a requested wife filed for divorceeand trict court denied his motion for continuance. hearing temporary support determine alimony. appear The husband failed to Denial of Continuance hearing at the and later failed to abide court's rulings made at the hearing. At a ^[124] his final issue appeal, contempt proceeding, later the husband's Byrd contends that the district court abused present, again counsel was but the husband grant its discretion when it refused to personally appear, leading failed to to the Again, motion for continuance. we do not issuance of a bench warrant. The husband agree. Byrd pro filed his se motion for *7 appear also did not at the time of the sched ap continuance on or about and, requested uled trial when his counsel to proximately days prior two to the scheduled withdraw, granted request. the court trial date. That motion stated that it was proceeded The court then with trial in the "based on the reason that the defendant has absence of the husband. This court reversed Greenwood, an appointment with Elizabeth judgment stating: the resultant legal According Byrd's new council to [sic]." case, In this the husband suffered own statement of the evidence filed with the injustice court, court, Byrd hearing when the district district the clarified at absence, attorney husband's allowed the to the reason for the continuance was not present withdraw because no one was to meeting conflict the with Ms. Greenwood Rather, represent the husband's interests. Those and the trial. the continuance was opportunity requested interests included an to chal- pursue wished to lenge contempt the possibility hiring represent order and to make a of her to him Therefore, appears formal for a continuance. in the it matter. Byrd misrepresented we hold that the district court abused its his motion that Ms. permitted discretion it when the husband's Greenwood had already been retained. In addition, Byrd to withdraw and then immediate- that his motion was indicated ly proceeded with the trial in the absence jointly by filed when this was both Also, previously, of the husband. The husband to is entitled not the case. as indicated this matter had been for over one being given have a trial new after reason- setting year able notice of the trial so that he the district court at the time that 678 al- Byrd had been according to the actually held. is considered court and

trial unique to the case. Shanor prior notice of cireumstances five months at least lowed Wyo., Wyoming, actually Engineering, commenced Inc. it v. date of before granted a continuance Smith, (1985); Wyo., previously and was v. P.2d Smith 1-9-102, (1985). § Under 704 P.2d 1319 joint motion on a date based the initial trial W.S.1977, may grant a continuance by parties. a court filed Alternatively, a good cause shown." "for is not Byrd argues that he Finally, [¶25] granted properly not be continuance late withdrawal for his counsel's to blame whim, request or upon the mere based and, therefore, should be such occurrence counsel, a sub and absent convenience recognized as against him. held doing so. legal factual or reason for stantial above, keep appointments to Byrd failed Evans, Smith, supra; Tomash Smith v. Byrd by messages left telephone return (1985). addi Wyo., We have 704 P.2d addition, delayed counsel. In may be tionally held that a continuance of an part a deed which execution of by court if the need for denied the trial through the efforts reached agreement by movant. is caused continuance the order Byrd further obstructed counsel. Service, Inc., Industrial Carlson BMW the dis this case. While ly progression of Wyo., 744P.2d 1383 temporary an order for court entered trict pay make Byrd did not spousal support, Mahaffey required. Byrd fur ments CONCLUSION discovery re cooperate with

ther did not Mahaffey file a motion to quests requiring set forth those reasons [¶27] Given meth employ other alternative compel and above, the district court are the actions of requested docu some of ods to obtain affirmed. mentation. by Byrd in his own As admitted GOLDEN, J., concurring. specially traditionally

brief, not favored this court has summarily I would affirm. delay have contributed those who indicate of this case do not circumstances own for continuance their caused the need rights were ever Byrd's process due Inskeep, 752 P.2d Inskeep v. actions. See point requiring this threatened to the Fox, P.2d (Wyo.1988); Urich herein raised Court to consider issues Sharp Sharp, 671 objected proce to the Byrd when he never Eddy, 669 (Wyo.1983); Cates v. P.2d "play the attempt dure below. Teton, 916; Teton v. failed, system" should not and this Court (footnote (Wyo.1997). Sharp, at 319 he objections to cireumstances entertain his omitted), stated: created. only upon granted will A. continuance deny a continu- good and a court will cause Further, I no reason for this see *8 problem gives which rise to ance where the advisory engage opinion in an re Court fault of the movant. We request is the 102(c). majority garding U.R.D.C. Since Craver, [601 in said as much Craver so, however, I am com opinion has done (Wyo.1979)] at where it was uncooperative An client pelled to comment. held: attorney's grounds support an create may deny a "... the trial withdrawing representation of that client. his gives problem if continuance But, itself, uncoop the fact that a client is a is to the for continuance rise enough an "ex erative is not to constitute moving for the party the fault traordinary required cireumstance" continuance." "extraordinary circum rule. Without Likewise, Inskeep, at we declared: stance," discretion the trial court is without of an accept the withdrawal consistently held that have We being in substitute counsel is record without granting denying of a continuance discretion of the acknowledgement within the sound from the place, or at least 102(c) language client. The of U.R.D.C. mandatory regard.

clearly in this majority opinion empha As the

sizes, quite this case had been time. The had at least four

some

months notice of the final trial date. The uncooperative point

client became at some

early in proceedings (appellee's sug brief

gests uncooperative attor his

ney beginning). Byrd's from the attor

ney plenty had of time to determine whether represent

or not he wanted to continue under circumstances. While

uncooperativeness may justified have coun withdrawal, nothing justi

sel's the record

fies counsel's withdrawal within two weeks of providing protection

trial without some (ex)elient. 102(c) I would hold that U.R.D.C.

was violated this case. I would particular

still affirm. Under circum case, Byrd prove

stances this cannot that a violated,

substantial and thus the violating

error the rule was harmless. 9.04.

W.R.A.P.

2003 WY 139

DOUBLE EAGLE PETROLEUM MIN & CORPORATION, Wyoming a

ING cor poration; Resources, River Wind Representing Appellant: Inc., Mark W. Gifford Wyoming Corporation, Appel a Newman, Craig, Casper, WY. (Plaintiffs), lants Representing Appeliee: Mr. Thomas Brown, LLP, Massey, Reese Drew & Cas- QUESTAR EXPLORATION & PRODUC Questar per, Exploration WY for & Produc- COMPANY, corporation; TION a Texas Co.; Wexpro tion Co. & Mr. R. Michael Wexpro Company, corporation; a Utah Mullikin, Swift, Mullikin of Larson & Jack- Company, Inc., Lance Oil & Gas Dela son, McGloin, Gary Davenport andWY C. corporation; Resources, ware and Ultra Snow, Denver, Davenport, & Severson CO Inc., Wyoming corporation, Appellees Co.; for Lance &Oil Gas and Mr. Gerald (Defendants). *9 Mason, P.C., Pinedale, Mason of Mason & No. 02-265. Burns, Wall, George WY and W. Mueller of Mueller, P.C., Denver, Supreme Wyoming. Smith Court & CO for Ultra Resources. Oct. HILL, C.J., GOLDEN,

Before LEHMAN, VOIGT, JJ., BROOKS, D.J.