Garcia v. State, 87-112
| Decision Date | 25 May 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-112,87-112 |
| Parties | Frank GARCIA, Appellant (Defendant), v. The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Leonard D. Munker, State Public Defender, and Julie D. Naylor (argued), Appellate Counsel, for appellant.
Joseph B. Meyer, Atty. Gen., John W. Renneisen, Deputy Atty. Gen., Michelle Neves (argued), Legal Intern.
Before CARDINE, C.J., THOMAS, URBIGKIT and MACY, JJ., and GRANT, District Judge.
This appeal is from a judgment and sentence entered after a plea bargain in which appellant Frank Garcia pled guilty to one count of felony murder for the murder of Kathleen Bernard and one count of conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery for the aggravated robbery of Kathleen Bernard and Robert Bernard. In the plea bargain, the State dismissed a felony murder charge for the murder of Robert Bernard and agreed not to seek the death penalty for the murder of Kathleen Bernard. The trial court sentenced appellant to consecutive sentences of life imprisonment on the felony murder charge and not less than 20 nor more than 25 years on the conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery.
We affirm the judgment and sentence.
Appellant, Frank Garcia, states a single issue for our review:
"Whether Appellant's consecutive sentences for felony murder and conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery violate the double jeopardy clauses of the United States and Wyoming Constitutions."
The court established a factual basis for the guilty pleas through Garcia's testimony. Garcia testified that he first discussed the robbery of Robert Bernard when he was approached by co-defendant Chuck Birr several weeks prior to March 1, 1985. In the succeeding weeks, Garcia, Birr, and another co-defendant Frank Schultz discussed the robbery and murder of both Robert Bernard and Kathleen Bernard. These discussions took place primarily in Casper, Wyoming, where Birr purchased some rope and tape necessary to execute the planned robbery and murder. The evening before the robbery and murder, Robin Koeneman drove the car carrying Garcia, Birr and Schultz to Gillette, Wyoming for the purpose of robbing and killing the Bernards. Upon arriving in Gillette, gloves and additional tape were purchased. The four then drove to a trailer court where the Bernards resided. Garcia armed himself with a .357 magnum pistol and a "buck" knife, and Schultz armed himself with a small derringer. As planned, Garcia and Schultz gained entry into the trailer house through a ruse of requesting permission to use the telephone to report an automobile accident. Upon entering the trailer, Garcia drew his .357 magnum pistol and ordered that the children, who were also in the room, be sent to bed. Mrs. Bernard, accompanied by Schultz, took the children into a back bedroom. Garcia then demanded that Mr. Bernard give him all of the money. Mr. Bernard produced a small amount of money. Garcia was not satisfied. He then took Mr. Bernard to a back bedroom and demanded additional money. Mr. Bernard said there was no additional money but admitted having a small quantity of drugs. After taking the drugs, Garcia instructed Schultz to bring Mrs. Bernard into the bedroom. At gunpoint, Garcia ordered the Bernards to lie down on the floor. Garcia and Schultz bound them with the rope. Schultz then handed a tire iron to Garcia, and Garcia struck each of the Bernards in the head. Thereupon, Garcia...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cook v. State
...3224, 110 L.Ed.2d 671 (1990) is wrong and that this court should determinatively follow the well-reasoned co-actor cases of Garcia v. State, 774 P.2d 623 (Wyo.1989) and Schultz v. State, 751 P.2d 367, 371 (Wyo.1988), Urbigkit, J., specially In my perception, Birr misunderstands and misappli......
-
Amrein v. State
...1117 (Wyo.1987), cert. denied 496 U.S. 940, 110 S.Ct. 3224, 110 L.Ed.2d 671 (1990) as the justified authority. See, however, Garcia v. State, 774 P.2d 623 (Wyo.1989) and Schultz v. State, 751 P.2d 367, 371 (Wyo.1988), Urbigkit, J., specially concurring, both of which properly recognized dou......
-
Duffy v. State, 87-160
...the offense of conspiracy to be a separate offense from the substantive crime that was the object of a conspiracy. In Garcia v. State, 774 P.2d 623 (Wyo.1989), we held that felony murder and conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery were intended by the legislature to be separate offenses. Th......
-
Hall v. State
...final matter. Because our substantive criminal law distinguishes between the crime of conspiracy and any substantive crime (Garcia v. State, 774 P.2d 623 (Wyo.1989); see Duffy v. State, 730 P.2d 754 (Wyo.1986)), the fact that Hall may have been granted immunity with respect to the offense o......