Dahl v. State
| Decision Date | 11 May 2020 |
| Docket Number | S-19-0204 |
| Citation | 462 P.3d 912 |
| Parties | Lonnie Lee DAHL, Appellant (Defendant), v. The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Representing Appellant: Diane Lozano, State Public Defender; Kirk A. Morgan, Chief Appellate Counsel. Argument by Mr. Morgan.
Representing Appellee: Bridget Hill, Wyoming Attorney General; Jenny L. Craig, Deputy Attorney General; Joshua C. Eames, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Timothy P. Zintak, Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Mr. Zintak.
Before DAVIS, C.J., and FOX, KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, and GRAY, JJ.
[¶1] Lonnie Lee Dahl pleaded no contest to child abuse and unlawful entry into an occupied structure (unlawful entry) after he entered the home where his estranged wife (Mrs. Dahl) and teenage son (the victim) were residing and hit the victim with a wooden shovel handle. He claims the charge of unlawful entry did not state a criminal offense. We conclude Mr. Dahl waived his claim by pleading no contest to the charge and affirm.
[¶2] Whether Mr. Dahl waived his challenge to the unlawful entry charge by pleading no contest.
[¶3] The following facts are gleaned from the affidavit of probable cause, which the district court and parties agreed established the factual basis for Mr. Dahl's no contest pleas.
[¶4] On October 8, 2018, peace officer Stephen P. O'Donnell, Jr., responded to a 911 call of a domestic disturbance at the Cody, Wyoming, residence where Mrs. Dahl and the victim were residing. Mrs. Dahl reported that she and Mr. Dahl were separated and he was not welcome in the home. Nevertheless, earlier that evening, Mrs. Dahl found him hiding in her bedroom.
[¶5] Mrs. Dahl informed the officer that she left her bedroom and told the victim Mr. Dahl was there. The victim confronted Mr. Dahl, and Mr. Dahl hit the victim several times with a wooden shovel handle. When Mrs. Dahl tried to intervene, Mr. Dahl hit her with the shovel handle. Mr. Dahl then fled the premises, taking a hunting rifle that had belonged to Mrs. Dahl's grandfather with him. Officer O'Donnell observed a bleeding wound
on the victim's head and bruising on his left arm.
[¶6] The State filed a felony information against Mr. Dahl, charging him with two counts of aggravated burglary, two counts of unlawful entry, one count of child abuse and one count of misdemeanor theft. The parties negotiated a plea agreement but did not put it in writing. At the change of plea hearing, the prosecutor described the plea agreement1 as including the following terms: 1) Mr. Dahl would plead no contest to Counts IV and V of the information – unlawful entry and child abuse, respectively; 2) the State would dismiss the other four counts with prejudice; 3) the State would recommend an eight to ten year sentence on each count, with the sentences to be served consecutively; and 4) Mr. Dahl could argue for whatever sentence he wished.
[¶7] After informing Mr. Dahl of the potential consequences of his plea, the district court gave him time to confer with his attorney. Mr. Dahl subsequently entered unconditional no contest pleas to Counts IV and V. The district court sentenced Mr. Dahl in accordance with the State's recommendation, and he appealed.
[¶8] Mr. Dahl claims his conviction on Count IV of the information (unlawful entry) must be overturned because it did not state a criminal offense.2 The State maintains Mr. Dahl waived his challenge to Count IV when he pleaded no contest to the charge.
[¶9] Whether Mr. Dahl's entry of an unconditional no contest plea waived the issue he raises on appeal " ‘presents a question of law that we review de novo .’ " Popkin v. State, 2018 WY 121, ¶ 11, 429 P.3d 53, 55 (Wyo. 2018) (quoting Redding v. State , 2016 WY 41, ¶ 13, 371 P.3d 136, 140 (Wyo. 2016) ) (other citations omitted). See also, Protz v. State, 2019 WY 24, ¶ 10, 435 P.3d 394, 397 (Wyo. 2019).
[¶10] A no contest or nolo contendere plea has the same effect as a guilty plea. Ochoa v. State, 848 P.2d 1359, 1361 (Wyo. 1993) (citing Davila v. State, 831 P.2d 204, 205 (Wyo. 1992) ). By entering a no contest plea, the defendant admits all the essential elements of the crime and waives all issues except those related to jurisdiction or the voluntariness of the plea. Popkin, ¶ 12, 429 P.3d at 55 ; Ochoa, 848 P.2d at 1362 (). See also, Hagen v. State , 2014 WY 141, ¶ 9, 336 P.3d 1219, 1222 (Wyo. 2014) (); Van Haele v. State, 2004 WY 59, ¶ 20, 90 P.3d 708, 714 (Wyo. 2004) (same). Mr. Dahl does not argue his plea was involuntary; therefore, we consider whether he has identified a jurisdictional defect.
[¶11] "Jurisdictional issues are those involving ‘the very power of the State to bring the defendant into court to answer the charge brought against him.’ " Popkin, ¶ 12, 429 P.3d at 55 (). "Nonjurisdictional defenses and objections are ‘those objections and defenses which would not prevent a trial.’ " Ochoa, 848 P.2d at 1362 (quoting Davila, 831 P.2d at 206 ) (other citations omitted). Jurisdictional issues include the "failure of the indictment or information to state a [criminal] offense." Davila, 831 P.2d at 205. See also , Protz, ¶ 10, 435 P.3d at 397 ; W.R.Cr.P. 12(b)(2) (). But see, F.R.Cr.P. 12(b) (); United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 629-31, 122 S.Ct. 1781, 1784-85, 152 L.Ed.2d 860 (2002) ().
[¶12] Mr. Dahl claims his no contest plea did not waive his challenge to Count IV. According to him, the district court did not have jurisdiction3 over Count IV because it did not state a criminal offense against him for two reasons: 1) it referred to an incorrect statute number; and 2) the victim was not a household member as required for domestic battery, which is an element of unlawful entry.
[¶13] Mr. Dahl claims the district court did not have jurisdiction over Count IV because it contained a citation error and, therefore, did not state a criminal offense under Wyoming law. Count IV stated:
On or about October 8, 2018, in Park County, Wyoming, [Mr. Dahl] did commit unlawful entry into an occupied structure: to wit[,] did without authority, enter or remain in an occupied structure and commit domestic battery [against the victim] as defined in Wyoming Statute Annotated § 6-2-510, in violation of Wyoming Statute Annotated § 6-3-307, a felony, punishable by imprisonment for not more than ten (10) years, a fine of not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00), or both[,] contrary to the form of the Statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Wyoming[.]
[¶14] Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-3-307 (LexisNexis 2019) states:
[¶15] Count IV improperly referred to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-510 (LexisNexis 2017) instead of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-511 (LexisNexis 2017). Sections 6-2-510 and 6-2-511 are related. Section 6-2-510 criminalizes domestic assault: "(a) A household member is guilty of domestic assault if, having the present ability to do so, he unlawfully attempts to cause bodily injury to another household member." Section 6-2-511 criminalizes domestic battery: "(a) A household member is guilty of domestic battery if he knowingly or recklessly causes bodily injury to another household member by use of physical force."
[¶16] Wyoming Rule of Criminal Procedure 3(c) addresses a citation error in an information:
(c) Harmless error . – Error in the citation of a statute or its omission, or any other defect or imperfection, shall not be grounds for dismissal of the indictment, information or citation or for reversal of a conviction if the error or omission did not mislead the defendant to the defendant's prejudice. ...
Under the plain terms of Rule 3(c), an error in a citation of a statute will not affect the validity of an information unless it misled the defendant to his prejudice.
[¶17] Mr. Dahl does not argue he was misled, and the record confirms the citation error was not misleading. The information contained the correct statutory language, i.e., "domestic battery"; it just contained the wrong statute number. This certainly should not have misled Mr. Dahl as the statute he was charged under, § 6-3-307, contained the correct statute number. In addition, a comparison of § 6-2-510 and § 6-2-511 clearly shows the latter applies to Mr. Dahl's case. The difference between domestic assault ( § 6-2-510 ) and domestic battery ( § 6-2-511 ) is that assault punishes an attempt to cause bodily injury to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Delgado v. State
...filed in support of the criminal information as a factual basis for his no contest plea. See Dahl v. State, 2020 WY 59, ¶ 3, 462 P.3d 912, 913 (Wyo. 2020) (establishing the basis for the defendant's no contest pleas from the probable cause affidavit); McEwan v. State, 2013 WY 158, ¶ 15 n.4,......