Sword v. State, 86-28
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming |
| Writing for the Court | Before BROWN; MACY; URBIGKIT; URBIGKIT |
| Citation | 746 P.2d 423 |
| Parties | Donald G. SWORD, Appellant (Defendant), v. The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff). |
| Docket Number | No. 86-28,86-28 |
| Decision Date | 19 November 1987 |
Page 423
v.
The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff).
Page 424
Public Defender Program: Leonard D. Munker, State Public Defender, and Julie D. Naylor, Appellate Counsel; Wyoming Defender Aid Program: Gerald M. Gallivan, Director, and Megan Olson, Student Intern, for appellant.
A.G. McClintock, Atty. Gen.; Jerry A. Stack, Deputy Atty. Gen.; John W. Renneisen, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen.; and Mary B. Guthrie, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before BROWN, C.J., and THOMAS, CARDINE, URBIGKIT, and MACY, JJ.
MACY, Justice.
Appellant Donald G. Sword was indicted by a Campbell County grand jury on four counts of delivery of or possession with intent to deliver controlled substances and one count of aiding and abetting the delivery of a controlled substance. Appellant entered a plea of not guilty and filed a motion to dismiss the indictment and dissolve the grand jury on the grounds that he was denied due process of law because the grand jury was convened and conducted improperly. The district court denied appellant's motion and set the matter for trial. Meanwhile, appellant and the county attorney entered into plea negotiations in which they agreed that the county attorney would move for dismissal of Counts III and V in exchange for appellant's guilty plea. Pursuant to that agreement, appellant changed his plea to guilty, and Counts III and V were dismissed. Appellant was sentenced on the remaining counts to consecutive terms of three and one-half to seven years, five to ten years, and two and one-half to five years in the Wyoming State Penitentiary and fined $5,500.
We affirm.
On appeal, appellant apparently seeks to challenge the continued validity of the grand jury system. However, the issues specifically set forth by appellant do not challenge the constitutionality of Wyoming's grand jury statutes. They are limited instead to the manner in which this particular grand jury was conducted. In a lengthy commentary highlighting the "ills" of the grand jury system, appellant contends that he was denied due process and equal protection of the law because the Campbell County grand jury was convened and conducted improperly. Specifically, appellant raises the following issues concerning the grand jury proceedings:
"Issue I
"Whether the Appellant has been denied due process and equal protection of the law by the actions of the prosecution in deliberately avoiding the preliminary hearing and obtaining indictments without observing minimal standards of fundamental fairness.
"Issue II
"Whether the current Grant Jury was improperly impaneled under Section 7-5-102 in that there was no necessity for said body, requiring the dissolution of the panel and the dismissal of the indictments.
"Issue III
"Whether the indictments in these cases are fatally defective for failure to conform to the statutory requirement that the foreman endorse the words 'A True Bill' upon each indictment.
Page 425
"Issue IV
"Whether the indictments should be dismissed because the conduct of the Grand Jury lacks any indicia of reliability in the assessment of probable cause.
"Issue V
"Whether the district court committed reversible error and abused its discretion in sentencing Donald G. Sword to terms of 3 1/2 to 7 years, 5 to 10 years and 2 1/2 to 5 years, to run consecutively in the Wyoming State Penitentiary, along with a total fine of $5,500 plus a surcharge of $75 to Victims of Crimes and $350.00 reimbursement for attorney's fees."
In addition, appellant claims that the district court abused its discretion in sentencing him to three consecutive terms in the Wyoming State Penitentiary.
The State restates the issues raised by appellant and sets forth the following additional claim:
"APPELLANT'S PLEA OF GUILTY RESULTED IN THE WAIVER OF ISSUES PRESENTED IN THIS APPEAL."
We decline to address the issues raised regarding the grand jury proceedings because we conclude that, by pleading guilty, appellant forfeited his right to challenge his conviction before this Court by claiming that the grand jury was convened and conducted improperly.
It long has been the rule that a guilty plea will prohibit a criminal defendant from appellate review of all but a few defenses and objections. 2 LaFave & Israel, Criminal Procedure § 20.6 (1984). This means that in most jurisdictions, when his defenses and objections...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sword v. Shillinger, No. 89-255
...been given by any court for this purported justification whereby the prosecutor violated the plea bargain agreement. In Sword v. State, 746 P.2d 423 (Wyo.1987) (Sword I), this court affirmed the grand jury proceedings, as it had in Hennigan, 746 P.2d 360, albeit for a different reason, and ......
-
Martin v. State, No. 88-155
...equivalent of a plea of guilty, it must follow that the effect of that plea is to waive all "non-jurisdictional" claims. Sword v. State, 746 P.2d 423 (Wyo.1987), citing Vallo v. State, 726 P.2d 1045 (Wyo.1986); and Tompkins v. State, 705 P.2d 836 (Wyo.1985), cert. denied 475 U.S. 1052, 106 ......
-
Bowlsby v. State, No. S–12–0078.
...that Mr. Bowlsby entered unconditional guilty pleas to both charges. A guilty plea waives all non-jurisdictional defenses. Sword v. State, 746 P.2d 423, 425 (Wyo.1987). Jurisdictional defenses are not waived, however, and we have previously recognized that double jeopardy is a jurisdictiona......
-
Davila v. State, No. 90-226
...as a guilty plea. Zanetti v. State, 783 P.2d 134, 139 (Wyo.1989). As a guilty plea waives all nonjurisdictional defenses, Sword v. State, 746 P.2d 423, 425 (Wyo.1987), so does a plea of nolo contendere. Zanetti, 783 P.2d at 139. Thus, unless Davila's claim was jurisdictional, it has been wa......
-
Bowlsby v. State, S–12–0078.
...that Mr. Bowlsby entered unconditional guilty pleas to both charges. A guilty plea waives all non-jurisdictional defenses. Sword v. State, 746 P.2d 423, 425 (Wyo.1987). Jurisdictional defenses are not waived, however, and we have previously recognized that double jeopardy is a jurisdictiona......
-
Sword v. Shillinger, 89-255
...been given by any court for this purported justification whereby the prosecutor violated the plea bargain agreement. In Sword v. State, 746 P.2d 423 (Wyo.1987) (Sword I), this court affirmed the grand jury proceedings, as it had in Hennigan, 746 P.2d 360, albeit for a different reason, and ......
-
Davila v. State, 90-226
...as a guilty plea. Zanetti v. State, 783 P.2d 134, 139 (Wyo.1989). As a guilty plea waives all nonjurisdictional defenses, Sword v. State, 746 P.2d 423, 425 (Wyo.1987), so does a plea of nolo contendere. Zanetti, 783 P.2d at 139. Thus, unless Davila's claim was jurisdictional, it has been wa......
-
Martin v. State, 88-155
...equivalent of a plea of guilty, it must follow that the effect of that plea is to waive all "non-jurisdictional" claims. Sword v. State, 746 P.2d 423 (Wyo.1987), citing Vallo v. State, 726 P.2d 1045 (Wyo.1986); and Tompkins v. State, 705 P.2d 836 (Wyo.1985), cert. denied 475 U.S. 1052, 106 ......