Goetzel v. State

• Decision Date: 06 March 2019
• Docket Number: S-18-0197
• Citation: 435 P.3d 865
• Parties: Darrel David GOETZEL, Appellant (Defendant), v. The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

435 P.3d 865

Darrel David GOETZEL, Appellant (Defendant),

v.The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff).

S-18-0197

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

March 6, 2019

Representing Appellant: Pro se

Representing Appellee: Peter K. Michael, Wyoming Attorney General; Christyne M. Martens, Deputy Attorney General; Caitlin F. Harper, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Katherine A. Adams, Senior Assistant Attorney General

Before DAVIS, C.J., and FOX, BOOMGAARDEN, and GRAY, JJ., and KRICKEN, D.J.

KRICKEN, District Judge.

[¶1] Appellant, Darrel Goetzel, challenges the district court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. This Court concludes that res judicata bars his claims and affirms on those grounds.

ISSUE

[¶2] In his appeal, Goetzel states the issue(s) as follows:

The Defendant’s motion was barred by res judicata by the District Court. Further the Wyoming Supreme Court barred the Defendant[’]s claim in a prior case with similar issues [sic] this is due to ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. More specifically appellate counsel never submitted critical information provided by the defendant, one of the issues relating to the subject of res judicata, as well as ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. However the defendant believes res judicata should not apply in this case because the defendant is filing this appeal under the new Wyoming Statute § 7-12-401 through 407, 7-6-107, 7-14-103, and 7-14-105"factual innocence actual innocence." The actual issue the Defendant would like to bring to this court[’]s attention is the defendant was convicted of a two count violation of Wyoming Criminal Statutes § 6-5-204 Interference with a peace officer and § 6-5-207 Escape by violence or assault. The issue before the Court is whether the charging, conviction, or consecutive sentencing of the defendant pursuant to two general statutes for the same conduct subjected him to Double Jeopardy in violation of the Constitutional guarantees of either the Wyoming or United States Constitutions?

The State of Wyoming generally rephrases the issue as:

Res judicata bars the relitigation of claims raised and decided in previous criminal proceedings. It also bars litigation of issues that could have been determined in a prior proceeding. The district court determined that res judicata barred Goetzel’s petition for post-conviction relief because he could have raised his underlying claims earlier. Did the district court err?

FACTS

[¶3] This Court previously summarized the relevant background facts as follows:

While being booked on various charges at the Goshen County Detention Center, Appellant hit the officer in charge, who fell to the floor. Appellant then kicked him in the head, causing severe injuries to the officer. Appellant used the officer’s radio to ask for the door to be unlocked. The door was opened, and he fled from the facility, taking the radio with him. He was apprehended six days later in Nebraska. Following his arrest, Appellant was charged with felony interference with a peace officer, felony escape, and felony larceny. About six weeks later, in a separate docket, Appellant was charged with the additional crimes for which he had originally been arrested. Those crimes included possession of a controlled substance, felony larceny, two counts of burglary, and four counts of forgery. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the State dismissed several of the charges and Appellant pled guilty to burglary, forgery, felony larceny, felony escape, and felony interference with a peace officer.

Goetzel v. State , 2017 WY 141, ¶ 3, 406 P.3d 310, 311 (Wyo. 2017) ( Goetzel I ). The district court sentenced Goetzel to concurrent sentences of four-to-seven years of incarceration for burglary and forgery. It also sentenced him to five-to-eight years of incarceration for larceny and nine-to-ten years for escape, to be served concurrently with each other but consecutively to the sentences for burglary and forgery. Finally, the court sentenced Goetzel to nine-to-ten years of incarceration for interference with a peace officer, to be served consecutively to his sentences for larceny and escape. Goetzel did not appeal his judgment and sentence. Id.

[¶4] In July 2012, Goetzel filed a Motion For Sentence Reduction , which was denied on its merits. In August 2015, Goetzel filed a pro se Motion For Sentance [sic] Modification , in which he sought to serve his sentences for interference with a peace officer and escape concurrently. This motion also was denied on the grounds that it was not timely filed. Goetzel did not present a double jeopardy claim in any of these motions, nor did he appeal any of these district court orders denying the motions.

[¶5] In May 2016, Goetzel filed his Motion To Correct An Illegal Sentence , challenging his sentences for interference with a peace officer and escape on double jeopardy grounds. He argued that his sentences constituted multiple punishments for the same offense, namely conduct that he characterizes as "one violent escape from county jail." The district court denied Goetzel’s 2016 motion to correct an illegal sentence on its merits, concluding that Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-5-204(b) (interference with a peace officer) and Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-5-207 (escape) each contain an element that the other does not. Thus, under the Blockburger ("same elements") test, Goetzel’s convictions and sentences did not violate the protection against double jeopardy. See Blockburger v. United States , 284 U.S. 299, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932) ; Sweets v. State , 2013 WY 98, 307 P.3d 860 (Wyo. 2013). Goetzel appealed.

[¶6] In Goetzel I , this Court determined that the doctrine of res judicata barred Goetzel’s double jeopardy claim, opining:

Our precedent is clear that the principle of res judicata may be applied to claims brought pursuant to W.R.Cr.P. 35(a). See, e.g., Hamill v. State , 948 P.2d 1356, 1358-59 (Wyo. 1997). In Hamill , we rejected the appellant’s argument that, because Rule 35 states that a motion to correct an illegal sentence may be brought at any time, it is not subject to bar under the doctrine of res judicata. Id.

Gould v. State , 2006 WY 157, ¶ 14, 151 P.3d 261, 266 (Wyo. 2006). Res judicata bars issues that were previously raised and considered, and also issues that "could have been raised in an earlier proceeding" but were not. Id. , ¶ 15, 151 P.3d at 266 (emphasis omitted).

Appellant raised his double jeopardy claim for the first time in his 2016 motion to correct an illegal sentence. He could have raised his double jeopardy claim in 2011 in a direct appeal from the district court’s judgment and sentence. He could have raised the claim when he filed his motion for sentence reduction in 2012. However, he stated in this motion that he did "not question any of the substantive or procedural underpinnings of his original sentence." Appellant could have raised his double jeopardy claim in 2015 when he filed his motion for sentence modification.

Appellant suggests two reasons we should not apply res judicata in his case. First, he points out that the State did not argue before the district court that res judicata barred his claim. He asserts that res judicata "may be waived." He cites no legal authority to support this assertion. To the contrary, "[w]e have routinely disposed of claims on res judicata grounds without regard to whether the issue was raised before the district court." Ferguson v. State , 2013 WY 117, ¶ 11, 309 P.3d 831, 834 (Wyo. 2013) (citing Kurtenbach v. State , 2013 WY 80, 304 P.3d 939 (Wyo. 2013) ); see also Lunden v. State , 2013 WY 35, 297 P.3d 121 (Wyo. 2013).

Second, Appellant contends that trial courts have the "power to hear post-conviction relief motions" if a defendant makes "a showing of cause ... sufficient to avoid the waiver rule." We have previously recognized that res judicata may not bar a claim if there is a showing of good cause for failing to raise the claim in prior proceedings. See Bird [v. State , 2015 WY 108], ¶ 10, 356 P.3d [264] 267 [ (Wyo. 2015) ]. In this appeal, however, Appellant has failed to present any facts or circumstances demonstrating good cause for not raising his double jeopardy claim in earlier proceedings. We find both of Appellant’s contentions unconvincing, and conclude that his claim is barred by res judicata.

Goetzel I , ¶¶ 7-10, 406 P.3d at 311-12 (emphasis added and footnote omitted).

[¶7] Thereafter, in March 2018, Goetzel filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari , effectively seeking to appeal, again, regarding the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, this time on the grounds that his appellate counsel was ineffective. This Court denied Goetzel’s request, explaining that, although the district court had appointed counsel for Goetzel in his appeal of the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, he actually had no constitutional right to counsel in that appeal and, thus, could not be deprived of effective assistance of counsel. Goetzel v. State , S-18-0066, Order Denying Pet. for Writ of Cert. , at 1 (March 27, 2018) (citing Hawes v. State , 2016 WY 30, ¶ 21, 368 P.3d 879, 886 (Wyo. 2016) ).

[¶8] Two months later, Goetzel filed his current Petition for Post-Conviction Relief Under the "Post-Conviction Determination of Factual Innocence Act." Goetzel claimed to file his Petition under both the Post-Conviction Determination of Factual Innocence Act, Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 7-12-401 through -407, and Wyoming’s post-conviction relief statutes, §§ 7-14-101 through -108, as amended in 2018. See 2018 Wyo. Sess. Laws Ch. 77, § 2. Therein, Goetzel argued, again, that his sentences for interference with a peace officer and escape violated the double jeopardy provisions of the United States Constitution and the Wyoming Constitution. He also asserted that his trial counsel was ineffective for foregoing an appeal. The district court denied Goetzel’s petition on three grounds: first, the Petition did not comply with the statutory requirements for a petition...