Garriott v. State
Decision Date | 18 January 2018 |
Docket Number | S-17-0097 |
Parties | Corey David GARRIOTT, Appellant (Defendant), v. The STATE of Wyoming Appellee (Plaintiff). |
Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Representing Appellant: Office of the State Public Defender: Diane Lozano, State Public Defender; Tina N. Olson* , Chief Appellate Counsel; Kirk Morgan, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel. Argument by Ms. Olson.
Representing Appellee: Peter K. Michael, Wyoming Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; Christyne M. Martens, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Jesse B. Naiman, Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Mr. Naiman.
Before BURKE, C.J., and HILL, DAVIS, FOX, and KAUTZ, JJ.
[¶1] Corey Garriott was convicted of one count of conspiracy to deliver methamphetamine. He appeals his conviction, claiming that the district court made numerous errors in the admission of testimony, and that it erred in denying his motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds. He further claims that plain error occurred when a law enforcement witness offered his opinion that Mr. Garriott committed the crime of conspiracy to deliver methamphetamine. We affirm.
[¶2] Mr. Garriott presents three issues on appeal, which we state as:
[¶3] In the fall of 2015, Pauline Hemicker began selling methamphetamine in Casper, Wyoming. Ms. Hemicker's original supplier was Joshua Coats, but around January 2016, Mr. Coats became unavailable because he was scheduled to begin serving a sentence at the Casper re-entry facility. Because Mr. Coats was going to be unavailable while serving his sentence, he made arrangements for Ms. Hemicker to obtain methamphetamine directly from his Colorado source, Chris Pino. As of January 2016, Ms. Hemicker therefore took over as Mr. Pino's distributor in Casper.
[¶4] Ms. Hemicker used multiple distributors to sell methamphetamine, but her main distributor was Mikey Ross, whom she met in November 2015. Around the end of January or the beginning of February 2016, Ms. Hemicker met Mr. Ross at home in his garage. Corey Garriott was also present, and Mr. Ross asked Ms. Hemicker if she had any work for Mr. Garriott.1 Ms. Hemicker took this to be a request for methamphetamine to distribute, because work was the slang term she, along with Mr. Ross and Mr. Garriott, used to refer to methamphetamine. Ms. Hemicker described that meeting:
[¶5] During that meeting in the garage, Ms. Hemicker supplied Mr. Ross with methamphetamine and instructed him that it was "totally up to him to distribute to whoever he did." On February 2, 2016, Mr. Ross sent Ms. Hemicker a text message, which stated, "Heh I got corys money for u," followed immediately by a message that he also had money for her. Ms. Hemicker understood the messages to refer to money for the methamphetamine she had supplied because that was the only thing for which either Mr. Ross or Mr. Garriott would owe her money.
[¶6] Ms. Hemicker described a number of occasions on which she supplied methamphetamine to Mr. Garriott or had discussions with him about supplying him with methamphetamine. Just a couple of days after the first occasion in Mr. Ross' garage, Ms. Hemicker again met Mr. Ross and Mr. Garriott at Mr. Ross' home. When Mr. Garriott left the home, Ms. Hemicker followed him to the driveway and handed him an 8-ball of methamphetamine.2 Thereafter, Ms. Hemicker started communicating directly with Mr. Garriott, and they exchanged several text messages relating to Ms. Hemicker's ability to supply Mr. Garriott with methamphetamine as well as money Mr. Garriott owed Ms. Hemicker.
[¶7] After being supplied by Ms. Hemicker, Mr. Garriott sold three grams of methamphetamine to a friend of his, Angela Danielson. Ms. Danielson described that transaction:
[¶8] Mr. Garriott fronted Ms. Danielson the methamphetamine he supplied her, meaning that he in effect sold it to her on credit. Their understanding was Ms. Danielson would pay Mr. Garriott after she sold the methamphetamine. In the days following that transaction, Mr. Garriott and Ms. Danielson exchanged numerous text messages concerning Ms. Danielson's desire to be introduced to Ms. Hemicker, her requests for additional work from Mr. Garriott, and the money she owed him.
[¶9] During this same February 2016 time frame, Mr. Garriott was living with John Fry, a methamphetamine user, and he was also selling methamphetamine to Mr. Fry. On February 8, 2016, Mr. Garriott sent a text message to Ms. Hemicker asking that she meet with him and Mr. Fry. His message stated, "Hey when you get some free time will you meet one of my homies and hear a business plan." Ms. Hemicker agreed to the meeting and described what occurred:
[¶10] Some days after that meeting, Mr. Garriott, while at home with Mr. Fry, sent a text message to Ms. Hemicker "trying to set up a meeting for her to come over and basically broker a deal for some meth." Mr. Fry explained:
[¶11] That same evening, Ms. Hemicker and her husband came to Mr. Fry's home. Mr. Fry again explained:
[¶12] Ms. Hemicker also continued to supply Mr. Garriott with methamphetamine, including on February 12 and 17, and March 13, 2016. On March 19, 2016, Mr. Garriott sent Ms. Hemicker a text message telling her that Angela Danielson wanted to spend $1,200, and asking if she could work with that. Ms. Hemicker understood that to be a request for about two ounces of methamphetamine, but because she did not have that amount, nothing came of that request. On March 20, 2016, Mr. Garriott again contacted Ms. Hemicker and told her "I really could use seeing you." Ms. Hemicker again understood this to mean Mr. Garriott needed methamphetamine.
[¶13] Ms. Hemicker responded to Mr. Garriott's March 20 text message with a request that Mr....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Byerly v. State
...court’s findings of fact underlying its determination unless they are clearly erroneous." Garriott v. State , 2018 WY 4, ¶ 53, 408 P.3d 771, 788 (Wyo. 2018) (quoting King v. State , 2017 WY 129, ¶ 9, 403 P.3d 1070, 1073 (Wyo. 2017) ). "A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when, although t......
-
Farrow v. State
...that the violation adversely affected a substantial right resulting in material prejudice." Garriott v. State , 2018 WY 4, ¶ 21, 408 P.3d 771, 780-81 (quoting Hathaway v. State , 2017 WY 92, ¶ 29, 399 P.3d 625, 634 (Wyo. 2017) (quoting Griggs v. State , 2016 WY 16, ¶ 81, 367 P.3d 1108, 1132......
-
Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility, Wyo. State Bar v. Hinckley
...difficult to see how we could find that the BPR abused its discretion in allowing the testimony. See Garriott v. State, 2018 WY 4, ¶ 62, 408 P.3d 771, 790 (Wyo. 2018) ("[A] party 'may open the door to otherwise inadmissible testimony when he inquires about a particular subject.'") (quoting ......
-
Dixon v. State
...have noticed and corrected the mistake even though the parties failed to raise the issue." Garriott v. State , 2018 WY 4, ¶ 21, 408 P.3d 771, 780 (Wyo. 2018) (citation omitted). Plain error is established when: "(1) the record clearly reflects the alleged error; (2) the party claiming the e......