Jennings v. State, 98-264.

• Decision Date: 27 April 2000
• Docket Number: No. 98-264.,98-264.
• Citation: 4 P.3d 915
• Parties: Tomi E. JENNINGS, Jr., Appellant (Defendant), v. The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

4 P.3d 915

Tomi E. JENNINGS, Jr., Appellant (Defendant), v. The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff).

No. 98-264.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

April 27, 2000.

Representing Appellant: Pro se.

Representing Appellee: Gay Woodhouse, Attorney General; Paul S. Rehurek, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Georgia L. Tibbetts, Senior Assistant Attorney General.

Before LEHMAN, C.J., and THOMAS, MACY, GOLDEN, and HILL, JJ.

LEHMAN, Chief Justice.

Tomi Edward Jennings Jr., acting pro se, appeals his conviction for escape from official detention in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 6-5-206(a)(i) (Lexis 1999) and 7-18-112 (Michie June 1987 Repl.).¹ Finding that none of Jennings' asserted constitutional violations merit reversal, we affirm his conviction. However, we remand to the district court for the limited purpose of directing the district court to amend the judgment and sentence with respect to the credit due Jennings for time served in presentence incarceration.

ISSUES

Jennings presents seven issues for review:

1. Whether the trial court erred in denying the pro se Appellant legal access and legal materials?

2. Whether the trial court erred in taking the pro se Appellant to court proceedings without first notifying the pro se Appellant of such court proceedings?

3. Whether the trial court erred in refusing African Americans to serve in the jury trial when pro se Appellant who is African American did request to trial court he wanted members of his race serving in his jury trial?

4. Whether the trial court erred in denying the pro se Appellant his constitutional right to a speedy trial?

5. Whether the trial court erred in computing the pro se Appellant's credit for time served while detained by the State of Wyoming?

6. Whether the trial court erred in denying full and complete records of all the court proceedings when such was requested by pro se Appellant?

7. Whether the trial court erred in unlawfully frustrating pro se Appellant's defense of entrapment?

The State rephrases those issues as follows:

I. Did the district court improperly deny Appellant access to legal materials or infringe on Appellant's ability to defend against the criminal charge?

II. Were Appellant's equal protection rights violated by the absence of African Americans from his jury panel?

III. Was Appellant denied his right to a speedy trial?

IV. Is Appellant entitled to credit on his sentence for the time spent in confinement in the State of Washington for an unrelated crime?

V. Has Appellant been improperly denied full and complete copies of transcripts from the criminal proceeding?

VI. Did the district court inhibit Appellant's ability to put on an entrapment defense?

FACTS

In late 1989, Jennings was convicted in Laramie County, Wyoming, on three counts of burglary. He was sentenced in January 1990, to three concurrent terms of five to ten years in the Wyoming State Penitentiary. Jennings v. State, 806 P.2d 1299, 1302 (Wyo. 1991). After serving less than four years at the penitentiary, Jennings was transferred to Community Alternatives of Casper (CAC), where he was to remain until he completed his sentence. On October 24, 1994, Jennings signed out of CAC to go to work and did not return.

On November 22, 1994, a warrant was issued for Jennings' arrest on a charge of escape from official detention in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 6-5-206(a)(i) and 7-18-112. Three years later, he was located in the state of Washington where he was serving a prison term for a burglary conviction in that state. Documentation provided to this court by Jennings indicates that upon being located in Walla Walla, Washington, he was placed under arrest on November 12, 1997, as a fugitive from justice from Wyoming. Although Jennings' burglary conviction was overturned by a Washington appeals court, he was held in custody by Washington authorities after November 12, 1997, for extradition to Wyoming on the escape charge. Following extradition proceedings, Jennings was released to Wyoming authorities on January 2, 1998.

Jennings was brought before the court in Wyoming for an initial appearance on January 5, 1998. A preliminary hearing was held on January 13, 1998, at which time Jennings was bound over to district court. He was arraigned in district court on February 18, 1998. A jury trial was held on May 18 and 19, 1998, and Jennings was found guilty on the escape charge. On July 1, 1998, he was sentenced to six to nine years in the Wyoming State Penitentiary with credit for 133 days of presentence incarceration time. Jennings appeals from his conviction and sentence. Throughout the proceedings in district court and in this court, Jennings has appeared pro se.

DISCUSSION

Access to Legal Resources

Jennings contends he was denied adequate access to legal materials. Jennings opted to proceed pro se, and the district court cautioned him about the risks of such self-representation throughout the proceedings. The district court appointed standby counsel for Jennings. Jennings acquiesced in the use of the standby counsel, and the record reflects that Jennings did consult with his standby counsel. The district court complied in every respect with the directives we set out in Van Riper v. State, 882 P.2d 230, 234-36 (Wyo.1994). When a defendant makes a decision to manage his own case, he relinquishes many of the traditional benefits associated with the right to counsel. State v. Rosales, 3 Neb.App. 26, 521 N.W.2d 385, 392 (1994). The district court's appointment of standby counsel availed Jennings of the materials he claims to have been denied. See Rowbottom v. State, 327 Ark. 79, 938 S.W.2d 224, 226-27 (1997)

; State v. Nicholas, 55 Wash.App. 261, 776 P.2d 1385, 1389 (1989); Wilkie v. State, 98 Nev. 192, 644 P.2d 508, 509 (1982); State v. Simon, 297 N.W.2d 206, 207-210 (Iowa 1980); and see generally, John S. Herbrand, Annotation, Accused's Right to represent Himself in State Criminal Proceeding—Modern State Cases, 98 A.L.R.3d 13 § 25 (1980 and 1999 Supp.). At the motions hearing held on Friday, May 15, 1998, Jennings indicated that he was ready for his trial which was to begin on Monday, May 18, 1998. At the beginning of trial, Jennings was asked again if he was ready to proceed; he responded, "Yes, I am, Your Honor." Jennings' performance throughout the proceedings evidenced his familiarity with the courtroom and criminal proceedings. We find no error in this regard.

Notice of Hearings

Jennings next alleges that the district court violated his right to due process by requiring him to attend hearings without adequate notice. He points specifically to four motion hearings held between his arraignment and trial. Three of the hearings were set for the sole purpose of hearing argument on the numerous pretrial motions filed by Jennings. In some cases, these hearings concerned motions extensively researched, written, and filed by Jennings not once, but two or three times in the months, weeks, or days before the hearing. In other cases, the hearings concerned motions filed by Jennings after a hearing was scheduled expressly for the purpose of hearing "all pending motions." In still other cases, the hearings were set in response to motions filed by Jennings complaining that his motions were not being heard.

The record clearly reflects that Jennings had considerable time to prepare his numerous motions. These motions which Jennings so thoroughly prepared were the subject of the hearings set by the court. It is not as if hearings were being scheduled without notice to Jennings on issues with which he was unfamiliar. Given these factors and the fact that some of the hearings were scheduled in response to Jennings' complaints that his motions were not being heard, we find no merit in his claim that he received insufficient notice of these hearings.

The fourth hearing about which Jennings complains was scheduled to hear argument on the motions to quash subpoenas filed in response to Jennings' efforts to subpoena a number of state officials to testify at trial.² The precipes giving rise to the motions to quash were filed by Jennings on March 11, 1998. The first motion to quash was filed two weeks later, and similar motions followed over the next couple of weeks. On April 13, 1998, the State filed a request for setting on the motions to quash subpoenas. With the then-existing trial date of April 20 looming only one week away, the district court set the motions to quash for hearing on April 16. By that time, Jennings had been in possession of and presumably had a chance to review the motions to quash for several weeks. Under the circumstances, we find no merit in Jennings' claim that he received inadequate notice of this hearing.

Jury Selection

Jennings next alleges that he was denied equal protection because no African Americans served on his jury. The one African American on the prospective panel was not called, and the jury that was ultimately selected to hear the case did not include any African Americans. Jennings objected to the jury as impaneled and requested that he be allowed to have African Americans on the jury. The district court noted the objection and allowed the case to go forward with the jury selected.

Jennings' argument in this case is similar to the argument he made previously in Jennings, 806 P.2d at 1307. There, we cited the rule that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects defendants from purposeful exclusion from a jury of members of his race. Id. Because Jennings presented no evidence suggesting purposeful exclusion of African Americans from his jury and instead complained only that there were no African Americans from which to choose, we said his claim was not cognizable.

Here, the argument is only slightly different in that the one African American on the prospective panel was not called, and for that reason, there were no African Americans on the venire from which to...