Cloud v. State

Decision Date09 February 2012
Docket NumberNo. S–11–0102.,S–11–0102.
Citation275 P.3d 377
Parties Wyatt L. BEAR CLOUD, Appellant (Defendant), v. The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff).
CourtWyoming Supreme Court

Representing Appellant: Diane Lozano, State Public Defender, PDP; Tina N. Olson, Appellate Counsel; Kirk A. Morgan, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel. Argument by Mr. Morgan.

Representing Appellee: Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Jenny L. Craig, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Jeffrey S. Pope, Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Mr. Pope.

Before KITE, GOLDEN, HILL, and BURKE, JJ.; and DONNELL, D.J.

DONNELL, District Judge.

[¶ 1] On August 26, 2009, Appellant Wyatt Bear Cloud and two co-defendants were involved in the armed burglary of a residence in Sheridan, Wyoming. During the course of the burglary, one of Bear Cloud's co-defendants shot and killed one of the home's residents. Bear Cloud was charged with, and ultimately pleaded guilty to, Murder in the First Degree (Felony–Murder), in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6–2–101(a) (LexisNexis 2011); Conspiracy to Commit Aggravated Burglary, in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 6–1–303(a) and 6–3–301(a) and (c)(i) (LexisNexis 2011); and Aggravated Burglary, in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6–3–301(a) and (c)(i) (LexisNexis 2011). He was sixteen years of age at the time of these offenses.

[¶ 2] In addition to his sentences on the burglary and conspiracy charges, Bear Cloud was sentenced to life imprisonment for his conviction for felony-murder. He now appeals his convictions and sentences on numerous grounds. For the reasons set forth herein, we affirm Bear Cloud's convictions and sentences in their entireties.

ISSUES

[¶ 3] Bear Cloud presents the following issues for review:

1. Was Appellant's trial counsel ineffective, specifically by: (A) inviting intrusion into the attorney-client relationship, (B) waiving his meritorious appellate issues and (C) incorrectly advising him of the consequences of his pleas, thus rendering his pleas involuntary?
2. Is a motion to transfer a case to juvenile court a dispositive motion, so it may be the subject of conditional guilty pleas?
3. Did the trial court abuse its discretion when it refused to transfer Appellant to juvenile court?
4. Does the sentence of life in prison for a juvenile who did not commit or intend to commit a homicide violate the [Eighth] Amendment of the United States Constitution?
5. Does the sentence of life in prison for a juvenile who did not commit or intend to commit a homicide violate Art. 1, § 14 of the Wyoming Constitution ?
6. Does the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment provided in the [Eighth] Amendment of the United States Constitution and Art. 1, § 14 of the Wyoming Constitution, prohibit the imposition of mandatory life imprisonment on a juvenile when the sentencing court cannot take into consideration the child's age, culpability or other mitigating factors?
7. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying Appellant's motion to withdraw his guilty pleas?

Appellee, the State of Wyoming, generally relies upon the same issues, albeit rephrasing them somewhat.

BACKGROUND FACTS

[¶ 4] In the early morning hours of August 26, 2009, Bear Cloud, along with co-defendants, Dennis Poitra, Jr. and Dharminder Vir Sen, entered the home of Robert and Linda Ernst in Sheridan, Wyoming, with the intent to steal items from the home. During the commission of this burglary, Sen shot and killed Mr. Ernst. Bear Cloud was sixteen years of age; Sen, fifteen; and Poitra, eighteen, at the time.

[¶ 5] Previously, sometime between August 19–26, 2009, during meetings at Bear Cloud's residence, these three co-defendants had planned to commit a series of burglaries. They obtained weapons (a knife, a 9mm handgun, and a landscaping timber modified to be used as a bat) and a map, planned the location of the burglaries, obtained dark clothing and masks, and then waited until the early morning hours of August 26, 2009, to carry out their plans. In fact, during this planning phase and a few days prior to the murder, Bear Cloud and Sen broke into a pickup truck and stole the handgun that ultimately was used to kill Mr. Ernst.

[¶ 6] Early in the morning of August 26, 2009, the three donned black bandanas and dark clothing to hide their identities. After first attempting to burglarize another residence, they entered the Ernst home by having Poitra cut the window screen and enter the house. He then unlocked the door, thus permitting Bear Cloud and Sen to enter. Poitra was in possession of the handgun and the knife; Sen was in possession of the bat.

[¶ 7] Upon gaining entry to the home, the three proceeded to search the basement for items to steal. En route to the basement, they passed the master bedroom and observed Mr. and Mrs. Ernst asleep in their bed. After a period of time spent "rummaging around" the home, Sen obtained the handgun from Poitra, stating that he wanted to "intimidate" or "interrogate" Mr. Ernst so as to coerce him into opening a safe that the co-defendants located in the basement.

[¶ 8] All three co-defendants returned upstairs, at which time Poitra and Sen went into the Ernst bedroom with the intent to confront the Ernsts. Bear Cloud apparently was on the same floor but not in the Ernst bedroom at the time. After shining flashlights into the Ernst bedroom to wake Mr. Ernst, Sen yelled something at Mr. Ernst and then shot him three times, killing him. The three then fled the home and returned to Bear Cloud's residence.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

[¶ 9] On August 27, 2009, the State filed an Information, charging Bear Cloud with one count of Murder in the First Degree, in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6–2–101(a), and one count of Conspiracy to Commit Aggravated Burglary, in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 6–1–303(a) and 6–3–301(a) and (c)(i). On September 15, 2009, the State amended the Information to add, as an alternative to the first-degree murder charge, one count of Accessory Before the Fact to First–Degree Murder, in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 6–2–101(a) and 6–1–201, and to add one count of Aggravated Burglary, in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6–3–301(a) and (c)(i).

[¶ 10] On October 27, 2009, Bear Cloud pleaded "not guilty" to all pending charges: Count I: Murder in the First Degree (Felony Murder ), in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6–2–101(a) ; Count II: Conspiracy to Commit Aggravated Burglary, in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 6–1–303(a) and 6–3–301(a) and (c)(i) ; and Count III: Aggravated Burglary, in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6–3–301(a) and (c)(i).

[¶ 11] On October 12, 2009, prior to his arraignment in the District Court, Bear Cloud filed a motion to transfer his case to juvenile court. That "transfer motion" was assigned to a different district court judge for consideration and was argued on May 19, 2010. After considering the evidence presented at the transfer hearing, the district court denied Bear Cloud's motion to transfer the case to juvenile court.

[¶ 12] On July 2, 2010, Bear Cloud filed a motion to suppress any statements he had made to law enforcement officers during two custodial interrogations. He asserted that he had not been adequately advised of his Miranda rights and that his statements were involuntary. Following an August 10, 2010 hearing on the matter, the trial court denied the motion, ruling that Bear Cloud had received proper Miranda advisements and that his statements were voluntary.

[¶ 13] On September 8, 2010, Bear Cloud filed his notice of intent to enter a conditional guilty plea, seeking to preserve his right to appeal certain issues. However, the State refused to consent to the conditional guilty plea, asserting that the issues Bear Cloud sought to preserve for appeal were not dispositive of the case. See Walters v. State, 2008 WY 159, 197 P.3d 1273 (Wyo.2008). Because the State would not consent, and because the district court agreed that the stated issues were not dispositive, the court could not accept a conditional guilty plea. Instead, after consulting with counsel, Bear Cloud appeared before the district judge and entered guilty pleas to all three charges. These were "cold pleas," entered without a plea agreement with the State.

[¶ 14] On September 21, 2010, with the advice of new defense counsel, Bear Cloud filed a motion to withdraw his guilty pleas, claiming that the district court failed to comply with W.R.Cr.P. 11 and that his previous defense counsel had been ineffective in advising him to plead guilty. On November 30, 2010, the district court held a hearing, at which time it denied the motion.

[¶ 15] On February 9, 2011, the district court sentenced Bear Cloud to: (1) 20–25 years in prison on Count III (Aggravated Burglary ); (2) life in prison with the possibility of parole1 on Count I (First–Degree Murder ), to be served consecutively to the sentence for aggravated burglary; and (3) 20–25 years in prison on Count II (Conspiracy to Commit Aggravated Burglary ), to be served concurrently with the first-degree murder sentence but consecutively to the aggravated burglary sentence. This appeal followed.

ANALYSIS

[¶ 16] In an attempt to best consider the issues raised by Bear Cloud on appeal, and because some of the issues presented are dispositive of others, this Court reorders them and addresses each as follows:

I. Denial of Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea

A. Standard of Review

[¶ 17] When a motion to withdraw a guilty plea is made before sentencing, W.R.Cr.P. 32(d) requires only "any fair and just reason" to grant the motion. It is the defendant's burden to show "any fair and just reason," and the burden shifts to the State to prove prejudice to its case only if the defendant first so demonstrates. See McCard v. State, 2003 WY 142, ¶ 11, 78 P.3d 1040, 1043 (Wyo.2003).

[¶ 18] Our review of the denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea, made pursuant to W.R.Cr.P. 32(d), and before sentencing,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • State v. Null
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • August 16, 2013
    ...v. Wyoming, 568 U.S. ––––, ––––, 133 S.Ct. 183, 183–84, 184 L.Ed.2d 5, 5 (2012) (granting, vacating, and remanding Bear Cloud v. State, 275 P.3d 377, 402 (Wyo.2012) (upholding life-without-parole sentence for juvenile convicted of first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit aggravated burglar......
  • Cloud v. State
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • September 10, 2014
    ...shot and killed one of the home's residents with the stolen gun. The facts are more thoroughly set forth in Bear Cloud v. State, 2012 WY 16, 275 P.3d 377 (Wyo.2012) (Bear Cloud I ), and Bear Cloud v. State, 2013 WY 18, 294 P.3d 36 (Wyo.2013) (Bear Cloud II ), and will not be repeated here.[......
  • Cloud v. State
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • September 10, 2014
    ...and killed one of the home's residents with the stolen gun. The facts are more thoroughly set forth in Bear Cloud v. State, 2012 WY 16, 275 P.3d 377 (Wyo.2012) ( Bear Cloud I ), and Bear Cloud v. State, 2013 WY 18, 294 P.3d 36 (Wyo.2013) ( Bear Cloud II ), and will not be repeated here. [¶ ......
  • Sen v. State
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • April 24, 2013
    ...mistakes in weighing the relevant factors,” as Sen contends. Addressing a similar argument in Bear Cloud v. State, 2012 WY 16, ¶ 36, 275 P.3d 377, 392 (Wyo.2012)( Bear Cloud I ), we stated that While Bear Cloud may assert that the court should have weighed the evidence differently, that fun......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT