Poitra v. State
| Decision Date | 17 February 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. S–15–0115.,S–15–0115. |
| Citation | 368 P.3d 284 |
| Parties | Dennis Anthony POITRA, Jr., Appellant (Defendant), v. The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Representing Appellant: Office of the Public Defender: Diane Lozano, State Public Defender; Tina N. Olson, Chief Appellate Counsel; David E. Westling, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel.
Representing Appellee: Peter K. Michael, Wyoming Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; Jenny L. Craig, Senior Assistant Attorney General.
Before BURKE, C.J., and HILL, DAVIS, FOX, and KAUTZ, JJ.
[¶ 1] Appellant Dennis Anthony Poitra, Jr., filed a motion to reduce his sentence of life without the possibility of parole to life as a matter of law. In support of his motion, he argued before the district court that because two juvenile codefendants may receive life sentences with the possibility of parole due to a United States Supreme Court decision and changes in the Wyoming Statutes, his sentence should be the same because he was just over the age of majority and no more mature when the crimes were committed.
[¶ 2] On appeal, Poitra argues that his sentence violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment and denies him equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.1 Because the constitutional issues were not raised below, because the equal protection argument is not cogently presented on appeal, and because the Eighth Amendment claim is not of a fundamental nature, we affirm.
[¶ 3] We restate the issues as we have been able to distill them from the briefs as follows:
1. Can Poitra raise an Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment claim for the first time on appeal?
2. Can Poitra raise a Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim for the first time on appeal?
3. If neither claim was preserved, did the district court abuse its discretion in denying the motion for sentence reduction?
[¶ 4] Mr. Poitra was convicted of felony first-degree murder, aggravated burglary, and conspiracy to commit aggravated burglary for the part he played in the murder of Sheridan resident Robert Ernst in 2009. The acts that led to that conviction, and to the convictions of his codefendants, Wyatt Bear Cloud and Dharminder Vir Sen, are described in greater detail in Poitra v. State, 2012 WY 58, 275 P.3d 478 (Wyo.2012)(Poitra I ), Bear Cloud v. State, 2012 WY 16, 275 P.3d 377 (Wyo.2012)(Bear Cloud I ), cert. granted & judgment vacated by ––– U.S. ––––, 133 S.Ct. 183, 184 L.Ed.2d 5 (2012), and Sen v. State, 2013 WY 47, 301 P.3d 106 (Wyo.2013).
[¶ 5] Poitra had just turned nineteen when the crimes were committed. Bear Cloud was sixteen, and Sen was fifteen. It is not necessary to restate the facts leading to their convictions in detail, but we will provide a brief summary for context. At some point, Poitra joined in a plan the two juveniles had conceived to commit home invasion robberies. Bear Cloud and Sen had broken into a pickup truck and stolen a 9 mm handgun, and the group somehow also collected a knife and a landscaping timber to be used as a club. They donned black bandanas and dark clothing to conceal their identities during the planned nighttime robberies.
[¶ 6] Poitra, carrying the handgun and a knife, cut a screen covering an open window at the Ernst home in the early hours of August 26, 2009. He entered the dwelling and let Bear Cloud and Sen in through a door. The group found a little cash, and Sen evidently decided to scare the Ernsts into opening a safe on the premises in the hopes of finding more to steal. He took the gun from Poitra, and the two of them entered the Ernsts' bedroom. Sen said something that woke Mr. Ernst, who told them to get out of his house. Sen then shot him three times, killing him.
[¶ 7] Poitra was tried and sentenced to life without possibility of parole on the felony first-degree murder conviction, and to twenty to twenty-five years for the crimes of conspiracy to commit aggravated burglary and aggravated burglary. The sentences are to run consecutively. We affirmed the convictions and sentences in Poitra I, supra.
[¶ 8] Because Poitra refers to the fate of his codefendants, we will briefly digress to explain their appeals in limited fashion. Bear Cloud pled guilty to first-degree felony murder, as well as conspiracy to commit aggravated burglary and aggravated burglary. He was sentenced to life as a matter of law on the murder conviction, and we affirmed each of his convictions and sentences in Bear Cloud I, ¶ 2, 275 P.3d at 383.
[¶ 9] Bear Cloud petitioned the United States Supreme Court for certiorari, which was granted. That Court vacated the judgment against him and remanded to us for reconsideration of his sentence in light of Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. ––––, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012), which it decided after we had rendered our decision in Bear Cloud I. In Miller, the Court held that the Eighth Amendment forbids a sentencing scheme that mandates life in prison without a realistic possibility of parole for juvenile offenders. 132 S.Ct. at 2469. The decision requires an individualized sentencing hearing before a life sentence without possibility of parole could be imposed on a juvenile. We held on remand that the possibility of executive clemency under Wyoming Statutes did not provide the equivalent of a realistic possibility for parole, and that Wyoming's sentencing and parole scheme therefore violated the Eighth Amendment under Miller. Bear Cloud v. State, 2013 WY 18, ¶ 34, 294 P.3d 36, 45 (Wyo.2013)(Bear Cloud II ). We remanded to the district court with instructions to conduct the individualized sentencing hearing required by Miller, which could require it to set a date upon which Bear Cloud would become eligible for parole on his murder conviction.2
[¶ 10] Dharminder Vir Sen was convicted of first degree murder, aggravated burglary, and conspiracy to commit aggravated burglary for his participation in the crimes already described. He was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole on the murder conviction. He appealed his convictions and his sentences. We affirmed the convictions, but we also vacated all sentences and remanded for resentencing consistent with Miller and Bear Cloud II. Sen, ¶ 52, 301 P.3d at 127–28.3 ,4
[¶ 11] Poitra timely sought a sentence reduction under Wyoming Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b).5 He asked the district court to reduce his sentence for the murder conviction to life as a matter of law from life without possibility of parole. Such a reduction could allow the Governor of the State of Wyoming to commute his sentence to a term of years, which might in turn allow him parole at some unknown time.6 The State objected to any sentence reduction, and the district court held a hearing on the application.
[¶ 12] The district court denied Poitra's motion for sentence reduction, referring to his extensive juvenile record and his turbulent history in the Sheridan County Detention Center and then the Wyoming State Penitentiary. It found that he was an ongoing threat to public safety. It also noted that Poitra's case was different from his juvenile codefendants because he was an adult at the time the murder was committed. His case therefore did not fall within the requirements of Miller v. Alabama and Bear Cloud II, which narrowly apply to juveniles who must be under the age of eighteen.
[¶ 13] Poitra timely perfected this appeal.
[¶ 14] Poitra now argues on appeal that his life sentence without the possibility of parole violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, as well as the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. If these issues could be considered by this Court, such questions of law would be reviewed de novo, rather than for an abuse of discretion as they would normally be for denial of a motion for sentence reduction. Compare Bear Cloud III, ¶ 13, 334 P.3d at 137with Boucher v. State, 2012 WY 145, ¶ 6, 288 P.3d 427, 429 (Wyo.2012). However, as further explained infra, his constitutional issues are either not cogently presented or not of such a fundamental nature that this Court will consider them for the first time on appeal.
[¶ 15] The State contends that Poitra did not raise either of the constitutional issues he now asserts in the district court, and that they are therefore waived unless this Court finds them to be jurisdictional or fundamental, citing Silva v. State, 2014 WY 155, ¶ 9, 338 P.3d 934, 936 (Wyo.2014)(quoting Belden v. Lampert, 2011 WY 83, ¶ 11, 251 P.3d 325, 328–29 (Wyo.2011)), and Statezny v. State, 2001 WY 22, ¶ 11, 18 P.3d 641, 644 (Wyo.2001). It points out that "[i]t is unfair to reverse a ruling of a trial court for reasons that were not presented to it, whether it be legal theories or issues never formally raised in the pleadings nor argued to the trial court," citing Silva, ¶ 9, 338 P.3d at 936. It argues that this rule has been applied when the appellant raised constitutional issues regarding sentencing for the first time on appeal, as it contends is the case here, citing Bhutto v. State, 2005 WY 78, 114 P.3d 1252 (Wyo.2005); Kenyon v. State, 2004 WY 100, 96 P.3d 1016 (Wyo.2004); and Apodaca v. State, 571 P.2d 603 (Wyo.1977). We agree.
[¶ 16] Our review of his motion indicates that Poitra sought a sentence reduction due to his claimed good behavior while incarcerated, and his pursuit of a G.E.D. and attending anger management classes. In that motion, he also mentioned Miller v. Alabama and the possibility that his codefendants, whose cases had been remanded, could be granted an opportunity for parole while they are still young enough to live a meaningful life, although without elaborating on the argument.
[¶ 17] At the hearing on the motion, Poitra's attorney made it very clear that she was not asking the district court to rule that he might be entitled to parole at all, but only that it should reduce his sentence to life as a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. State, S-16-0291
...or de facto life, sentences. Accordingly, we can only conclude that Mr. Davis did not sufficiently raise the issue below. See Poitra v. State , 2016 WY 20, ¶¶ 18-19, 368 P.3d 284, 288-89 (Wyo. 2016). Further, the issue does not present a jurisdictional question. [¶34] Thus, the question tha......
-
Thompson v. State
...73 P.3d 1041, 1090 (Wyo. 2003) (citations omitted). See also , Gompf v. State, 2005 WY 112, ¶ 16, 120 P.3d 980, 985 (Wyo. 2005) ; Poitra v. State, 2016 WY 20, ¶¶ 15-19, 368 P.3d 284, 288-89 (Wyo. 2016). The rationale behind this rule is that "it is unfair to reverse a ruling of a trial cour......
-
Bracewell v. State
...in psychology and brain science [that] continue to show fundamental differences between juvenile and adult minds’)."In Poitra v. State, 368 P.3d 284 (Wyo. 2016), we rejected the argument that a nineteen-year-old should receive the same constitutional protections as juveniles, reasoning that......
-
Nicodemus v. State, S-16-0186
...possibility of parole. See Miller , 567 U.S. at ––––, 132 S.Ct. at 2469.Bear Cloud II , ¶ 34, 294 P.3d at 45 (emphasis added); (Poitra v. State , 2016 WY 20, ¶ 23, 368 P.3d 284, 289 (Wyo. 2016) ) (" Miller, on the other hand, directly requires consideration of a meaningful opportunity to pa......