DeLoge v. State, No. 01-41.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
Writing for the CourtHILL, Chief Justice.
Citation55 P.3d 1233,2002 WY 155
PartiesSteven Allen DELOGE, Appellant (Defendant), v. The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff).
Decision Date16 October 2002
Docket NumberNo. 01-41.

55 P.3d 1233
2002 WY 155

Steven Allen DELOGE, Appellant (Defendant),
v.
The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff)

No. 01-41.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

October 16, 2002.


55 P.3d 1235
Kenneth M. Koski, State Public Defender; Donna D. Domonkos, Appellate Counsel; and Ryan R. Roden, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel, Representing Appellant

Hoke MacMillan, Attorney General; Paul S. Rehurek, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Kimberly A. Baker, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Representing Appellee.

Before HILL, C.J., and GOLDEN, LEHMAN1, KITE, and VOIGT, JJ.

HILL, Chief Justice.

[¶ 1] Appellant, Steven Allen DeLoge (DeLoge), appeals from the judgment and sentence of the district court, which imposed six consecutive life sentences. DeLoge entered pleas of guilty to six counts of sexual assault in the second degree and, in accordance with the enhancement provision of the sentencing statute which governs sexual assault convictions, the six consecutive life sentences were imposed.

[¶ 2] We will affirm.

ISSUES

[¶ 3] DeLoge raises these issues:

I. Whether the district court erred when it sentenced Appellant to six (6) life terms under the enhancement provision of Wyo. Stat. § 6-2-306(c), as the plain statutory language of Wyo. Stat. § 6-2-306 does not expressly permit multiple enhancements?
II. Whether the district court erred as a matter of law when it enhanced Appellant's sentence to life in prison for Count I?
III. [Were] Appellant's State and Federal constitutional rights not to be placed twice in jeopardy for the same offense violated by the enhanced penalties of W.S. § 6-2-306?
IV. Did the prosecutor commit prosecutorial misconduct when he specifically mentioned uncharged, unfounded misconduct evidence in closing at sentencing, and did the district court err in overruling Appellant's objection to this?

The State condenses those issues into these two queries:

I. Whether Appellant was properly sentenced for his convictions on six counts of second degree sexual assault?
II. Whether the prosecutor committed misconduct at Appellant's sentencing hearing?

FACTS

[¶ 4] The central issue in this case concerns the intended meaning of the sentencing provisions of the sexual assault statutes. The statute provides:

§ 6-2-306. Penalties for sexual assault.
(a) An actor convicted of sexual assault who does not qualify under the criteria of subsection (b) or (d) of this section shall be punished as follows:
(i) Sexual assault in the first degree is a felony punishable by imprisonment for not less than five (5) years nor more than fifty (50) years;
(ii) Sexual assault in the second degree is a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than twenty (20) years;
55 P.3d 1236
(iii) Sexual assault in the third degree is a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than fifteen (15) years;
(iv) Repealed by Laws 1997, ch. 135, § 2.
(b) An actor who is convicted of sexual assault and who does not qualify under the criteria of subsection (d) of this section shall be punished by the extended terms of subsection (c) of this section if:
(i) He is being sentenced for two (2) or more separate acts of sexual assault in the first or second degree;
(ii) He previously has been convicted of any crime containing the same or similar elements as the crimes defined in W.S. 6-2-302 or 6-2-303.
(c) An actor convicted of sexual assault who qualifies under the criteria of subsection (b) of this section shall be punished as follows:
(i) Sexual assault in the first or second degree is a felony punishable by imprisonment for not less than five (5) years or for life;
(ii) Sexual assault in the third degree is a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than twenty (20) years;
(iii) Repealed by Laws 1997, ch. 135, § 2.
(d) An actor who is convicted of sexual assault shall be punished by life imprisonment without parole if the actor has two (2) or more previous convictions for any of the following designated offenses, which convictions resulted from charges separately brought and which arose out of separate occurrences in this state or elsewhere:
(i) A crime defined in W.S. 6-2-302 through 6-2-304 or a criminal statute containing the same or similar elements as a crime defined by W.S. 6-2-302 through 6-2-304;
(ii) Repealed by Laws 1997, ch. 135, § 2.
(iii) A conviction under W.S. 14-3-105(a), or a criminal statute containing the same or similar elements as the crime defined by W.S. 14-3-105(a), if the circumstances of the crime involved a victim who was under the age of sixteen (16) at the time of the offense and an actor who was at least four (4) years older than the victim.

Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-306 (LexisNexis 2001) (emphasis added).

[¶ 5] DeLoge entered pleas of guilty to committing sexual assault in the second degree, on six separate and distinct occasions, on the person of FL, a female child who was eight years old at the time the crimes were committed. DeLoge was approximately 40 years old when the offenses were committed. The second degree sexual assault statute provides:

§ 6-2-303. Sexual assault in the second degree.
(a) Any actor who inflicts sexual intrusion on a victim commits sexual assault in the second degree if, under circumstances not constituting sexual assault in the first degree:
(i) The actor causes submission of the victim by threatening to retaliate in the future against the victim or
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 practice notes
  • Sincock v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • 12 Septiembre 2003
    ...(2) a second prosecution for the same offense after a conviction, and (3) multiple punishments for the same offense. DeLoge v. State, 2002 WY 155, ¶ 7, 55 P.3d 1233, ¶ 7 (Wyo.2002). In this case, we are concerned with the third protection— multiple punishments for the same offense— and whet......
  • Martinez v. State, No. 04-238.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • 13 Febrero 2006
    ...based upon unreliable information, undocumented information, or inaccurate information. Mehring, 860 P.2d at 1117; DeLoge v. State, 2002 WY 155, ¶ 13, 55 P.3d 1233, ¶ 13 Id., 2004 WY 70, ¶ 13, 92 P.3d at 293. In Bitz v. State, 2003 WY 140, ¶ 14, 78 P.3d 257, 260-61 (Wyo.2003), we further st......
  • Hill v. Stubson, S-17-0234
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • 25 Junio 2018
    ...only if the plaintiff suffers special harm, meaning the "loss of something having economic or pecuniary value." Hoblyn , ¶ 42, 55 P.3d at 1233. Defamation per se differs in that damages are presumed and the claim is actionable without special damages.Defamation per se means a statement whic......
  • Deeds v. State, No. S–13–0256.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • 3 Octubre 2014
    ...(Wyo.2012) (quoting Hubbard v. State, 2008 WY 12, ¶ 24, 175 P.3d 625, 630 (Wyo.2008) ); Manes, 2004 WY 70, ¶ 13, 92 P.3d at 293 ; DeLoge, 2002 WY 155, ¶ 13, 55 P.3d at 1239. “To demonstrate a violation of this right, [the defendant] must show a ‘manifest injustice from the inclusion of the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
28 cases
  • Sincock v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • 12 Septiembre 2003
    ...(2) a second prosecution for the same offense after a conviction, and (3) multiple punishments for the same offense. DeLoge v. State, 2002 WY 155, ¶ 7, 55 P.3d 1233, ¶ 7 (Wyo.2002). In this case, we are concerned with the third protection— multiple punishments for the same offense— and whet......
  • Martinez v. State, No. 04-238.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • 13 Febrero 2006
    ...based upon unreliable information, undocumented information, or inaccurate information. Mehring, 860 P.2d at 1117; DeLoge v. State, 2002 WY 155, ¶ 13, 55 P.3d 1233, ¶ 13 Id., 2004 WY 70, ¶ 13, 92 P.3d at 293. In Bitz v. State, 2003 WY 140, ¶ 14, 78 P.3d 257, 260-61 (Wyo.2003), we further st......
  • Hill v. Stubson, S-17-0234
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • 25 Junio 2018
    ...only if the plaintiff suffers special harm, meaning the "loss of something having economic or pecuniary value." Hoblyn , ¶ 42, 55 P.3d at 1233. Defamation per se differs in that damages are presumed and the claim is actionable without special damages.Defamation per se means a statement whic......
  • Deeds v. State, No. S–13–0256.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • 3 Octubre 2014
    ...(Wyo.2012) (quoting Hubbard v. State, 2008 WY 12, ¶ 24, 175 P.3d 625, 630 (Wyo.2008) ); Manes, 2004 WY 70, ¶ 13, 92 P.3d at 293 ; DeLoge, 2002 WY 155, ¶ 13, 55 P.3d at 1239. “To demonstrate a violation of this right, [the defendant] must show a ‘manifest injustice from the inclusion of the ......
  • 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