Home -> Law Blog Directory -> State Courts Blogs -> Law Library Letter

State Courts

: Law Library Letter

Summary 2008 WY 141

Summary of Decision issued December 2, 2008

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: Roesch v. State

Citation: 2008 WY 141

Docket Number: S-08-0067, S-08-0068

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, the Honorable Peter G. Arnold, Judge.

Representing Appellant: Diane M. Lozano, State Public Defender; Tina N. Kerin, Appellate Counsel; Michael H. Reese, Appellate Counsel.

Representing Appellee: Bruce A. Salzburg, Wyoming Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Leda M. Pojman, Assistant Attorney General.

Facts/Discussion: Roesch claimed the State violated his right to speedy sentencing when it failed to retrieve him from federal authorities so that it could sentence him within one year after he pleaded guilty to state charges.
Based on the course of proceedings, the Court concluded that the State had offered sufficient facts and circumstances to explain the delay and it was not unreasonable for the district court to sentence Roesch after he was returned by federal authorities. The case is different from where the Court ruled that the sentences were void because the district court violated the defendant?s rights to a speedy sentencing. In Yates, the district court attempted to use a sentence deferral on one of several counts and accordingly, delayed the imposition of sentence on the deferred count for more than a decade. The Court concluded that the district court?s decision to suspend imposition of sentence for more than ten years was unreasonable. In Daugherty, the district court deferred sentencing on one of two counts for an undetermined amount of time, without stating its reasons for doing so. After revoking Daugherty?s probation on the first count, the district court proceeded to sentence him on the second count. The sentencing took place three years after guilt had been established. The Court ruled the delay was unreasonable.

Holding: The purpose of timely sentencing is to prevent the possibility that a greater punishment than is deserved will be imposed based upon conduct occurring after the finding of guilt but prior to sentencing. The sentences in the instant case were consistent with the plea agreement. Thus there is no concern that Roesch?s state sentences were affected by the delay. The district court did not abuse its discretion by sentencing Roesch for his state crimes or by denying his motion to dismiss sentencing.

Affirmed.

J. Kite delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/5dj8qw .

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. Please note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]

Full post as published by Law Library Letter on December 02, 2008 (boomark / email).