Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 Wyoming opinions name it 1 courts 1989–2023 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Wyoming courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Sami v. Stategreen2 sentences2005See also, Sami v. State, 2004 WY 23, ¶ 9 , 85 P.3d 1014, 1017 (Wyo.2004). [¶ 10] W.R.Cr.P. 11(f) articulates the factual basis requirement for acceptance of a guilty plea. 2005See also, Sami v. State, 2004 WY 23, ¶ 9 , 85 P.3d 1014, 1017 (Wyo.2004). [¶ 10] W.R.Cr.P. 11(f) articulates the factual basis requirement for acceptance of a guilty plea. | 3 | 3 |
Van Haele v. Stategreen2 sentences2022The factual basis inquiry protects “a defendant who is in the position of pleading voluntarily with an understanding of the nature of the charge but without realizing that his conduct does not actually fall within the charge.” Id. (quoting Van Haele v. State, 2004 WY 59, ¶ 13 , 90 P.3d 708, 712 (Wyo. 2004)). 2022The factual basis inquiry protects “a defendant who is in the position of pleading voluntarily with an understanding of the nature of the charge but without realizing that his conduct does not actually fall within the charge.” Id. (quoting Van Haele v. State, 2004 WY 59, ¶ 13 , 90 P.3d 708, 712 (Wyo. 2004)). | 2 | 4 |
Kiet Hoang Nguyen v. The State of Wyominggreen2 sentences2022W.R.Cr.P. 11 does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant who pleads guilty is actually guilty nor does it require complete descriptions of the elements.” Reid v. State, 2021 WY 121, ¶ 12 , 497 P.3d 464 , 466 (Wyo. 2021) (quoting Nguyen, 2013 WY 50, ¶ 11 , 299 P.3d at 686 ). [¶8] The purpose of the factual basis requirement is “to prevent the individual charged with a crime from being misled into a waiver of substantial rights.” Williams v. State, 2015 WY 100, ¶ 21 , 354 P.3d 954 , 962 (Wyo. 2016) (quoting Nguyen, 2013 WY 50, ¶ 11 , 299 P.3d at 686 ). 2022W.R.Cr.P. 11 does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant who pleads guilty is actually guilty nor does it require complete descriptions of the elements.” Reid v. State, 2021 WY 121, ¶ 12 , 497 P.3d 464 , 466 (Wyo. 2021) (quoting Nguyen, 2013 WY 50, ¶ 11 , 299 P.3d at 686 ). [¶8] The purpose of the factual basis requirement is “to prevent the individual charged with a crime from being misled into a waiver of substantial rights.” Williams v. State, 2015 WY 100, ¶ 21 , 354 P.3d 954 , 962 (Wyo. 2016) (quoting Nguyen, 2013 WY 50, ¶ 11 , 299 P.3d at 686 ). | 1 | 2 |
Barnes v. Stategreen1 sentence2022“A sufficient inquiry includes a determination that the defendant understood his conduct, in light of the law, to be criminal.” Sami v. State, 2004 WY 23, ¶ 9 , 85 P.3d 1014, 1017 (Wyo. 2004) (citing Barnes v. State, 951 P.2d 386, 389 (Wyo. 1998)). | 1 | 1 |
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Bonetgreen1 sentence2015In the context of attorney discipline, a "factual basis" exists when "the record contains evidence in sufficient quantum to persuade a fair-minded, rational person of the truth of a declared premise." In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Bonet, 144 Wash.2d 502 , 29 P.3d 1242, 1247 (2001) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Porter v. McKunegreen1 sentence2013Porter v. McKune, 189 Fed.Appx. 738, 740, n. 1 (10th Cir.2006) (unpublished opinion). | 1 | 1 |
Kidwell v. Stategreen2 sentences2013Id., 4 8, 286 P.3d at 1086 . [110] Considering this authority, we conclude the plain error standard applies to Mr. Nguyen's claim because he did not move to withdraw his guilty plea or otherwise object to the sufficiency of the factual basis in the district court. " 'Plain error exists when: 1) the record is clear about the incident alleged as error; 2) there was a transgression of a clear and unequivocal rule of law; and 3) the party claiming the error was denied a substantial right which materially prejudiced him.'" Kidwell v. State, 2012 WY 91, ¶ 10 , 279 P.3d 540, 543 (Wyo.2012), quoting T 2013Id., 4 8, 286 P.3d at 1086 . [110] Considering this authority, we conclude the plain error standard applies to Mr. Nguyen's claim because he did not move to withdraw his guilty plea or otherwise object to the sufficiency of the factual basis in the district court. " 'Plain error exists when: 1) the record is clear about the incident alleged as error; 2) there was a transgression of a clear and unequivocal rule of law; and 3) the party claiming the error was denied a substantial right which materially prejudiced him.'" Kidwell v. State, 2012 WY 91, ¶ 10 , 279 P.3d 540, 543 (Wyo.2012), quoting T | 1 | 1 |
Talley v. Stategreen2 sentences2013Id., 4 8, 286 P.3d at 1086 . [110] Considering this authority, we conclude the plain error standard applies to Mr. Nguyen's claim because he did not move to withdraw his guilty plea or otherwise object to the sufficiency of the factual basis in the district court. " 'Plain error exists when: 1) the record is clear about the incident alleged as error; 2) there was a transgression of a clear and unequivocal rule of law; and 3) the party claiming the error was denied a substantial right which materially prejudiced him.'" Kidwell v. State, 2012 WY 91, ¶ 10 , 279 P.3d 540, 543 (Wyo.2012), quoting T 2013Id., 4 8, 286 P.3d at 1086 . [110] Considering this authority, we conclude the plain error standard applies to Mr. Nguyen's claim because he did not move to withdraw his guilty plea or otherwise object to the sufficiency of the factual basis in the district court. " 'Plain error exists when: 1) the record is clear about the incident alleged as error; 2) there was a transgression of a clear and unequivocal rule of law; and 3) the party claiming the error was denied a substantial right which materially prejudiced him.'" Kidwell v. State, 2012 WY 91, ¶ 10 , 279 P.3d 540, 543 (Wyo.2012), quoting T | 1 | 1 |
Smallwood v. Stategreen2 sentences1989See Smallwood v. State, 771 P.2d 798 (Wyo.1989). 4. 1989See Smallwood v. State, 771 P.2d 798 (Wyo. 1989). 4. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wyoming. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kelvin Wayne Williams v. State
neutral
2 sentences2023The factual basis inquiry protects “a defendant who is in the position of pleading voluntarily with an understanding of the nature of the charge but without realizing that his conduct does not actually fall within the charge.” Beeson, ¶ 8, 512 P.3d at 989 (quoting Williams v. State, 2015 WY 100, ¶ 21 , 354 P.3d 954 , 962 (Wyo. 2015)). [¶9] A court violates a clear and unequivocal rule of law when it accepts a guilty plea without a sufficient factual basis to establish the defendant committed the charged crime. 2022W.R.Cr.P. 11 does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant who pleads guilty is actually guilty nor does it require complete descriptions of the elements.” Reid v. State, 2021 WY 121, ¶ 12 , 497 P.3d 464 , 466 (Wyo. 2021) (quoting Nguyen, 2013 WY 50, ¶ 11 , 299 P.3d at 686 ). [¶8] The purpose of the factual basis requirement is “to prevent the individual charged with a crime from being misled into a waiver of substantial rights.” Williams v. State, 2015 WY 100, ¶ 21 , 354 P.3d 954 , 962 (Wyo. 2016) (quoting Nguyen, 2013 WY 50, ¶ 11 , 299 P.3d at 686 ). | 2 | 2022–2023 |
Joshua Aaron Reid v. The State of Wyoming
neutral
1 sentence2022W.R.Cr.P. 11 does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant who pleads guilty is actually guilty nor does it require complete descriptions of the elements.” Reid v. State, 2021 WY 121, ¶ 12 , 497 P.3d 464 , 466 (Wyo. 2021) (quoting Nguyen, 2013 WY 50, ¶ 11 , 299 P.3d at 686 ). [¶8] The purpose of the factual basis requirement is “to prevent the individual charged with a crime from being misled into a waiver of substantial rights.” Williams v. State, 2015 WY 100, ¶ 21 , 354 P.3d 954 , 962 (Wyo. 2016) (quoting Nguyen, 2013 WY 50, ¶ 11 , 299 P.3d at 686 ). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
In re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Bonet
green
1 sentence2015In the context of attorney discipline, a "factual basis" exists when "the record contains evidence in sufficient quantum to persuade a fair-minded, rational person of the truth of a declared premise." In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Bonet, 144 Wash.2d 502 , 29 P.3d 1242, 1247 (2001) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Starrett v. State
green
1 sentence2013Id., 4 8, 286 P.3d at 1086 . [110] Considering this authority, we conclude the plain error standard applies to Mr. Nguyen's claim because he did not move to withdraw his guilty plea or otherwise object to the sufficiency of the factual basis in the district court. " 'Plain error exists when: 1) the record is clear about the incident alleged as error; 2) there was a transgression of a clear and unequivocal rule of law; and 3) the party claiming the error was denied a substantial right which materially prejudiced him.'" Kidwell v. State, 2012 WY 91, ¶ 10 , 279 P.3d 540, 543 (Wyo.2012), quoting T | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.