Vlahos v. State

Summary

The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed Eduardo Vlahos's conviction for conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery. The court rejected his speedy-trial claim and held that a coconspirator's in-court testimony may independently support a conspiracy conviction without corroborating evidence. The court also found sufficient evidence and no reversible error concerning accomplice or coconspirator jury instructions or ineffective assistance of counsel.

Holdings

1. The trial court did not violate W.R.Cr.P. 48(b) by continuing the trial beyond 120 days because the continuances were justified by the crowded docket, Vlahos failed to object or demonstrate prejudice as required by the rule, and the December 10 setting remained within six calendar months of arraignment.
2. Under Wyoming law, a conviction may be sustained on the unsupported testimony of an accomplice if the testimony is convincing and credible; corroboration is not required.
3. Independent evidence corroborating a conspiracy is not required when a coconspirator testifies in court and presents direct testimony concerning the conspiracy and the defendant's involvement; such testimony itself is sufficient independent evidence to support a conspiracy conviction.
4. The trial court did not commit plain error by failing to instruct that a conspiracy conviction required corroboration of coconspirator testimony or that accomplice testimony required corroboration, because Wyoming law imposes no such requirements.
5. The trial court did not commit plain error by failing to determine as a matter of law that particular witnesses were accomplices or coconspirators or by failing to submit that question to the jury, because no clear and unequivocal rule required either action.
6. Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to request accomplice or coconspirator instructions because the omitted corroboration instructions were not legally required, and failure to request a discretionary cautionary instruction did not constitute constitutionally deficient performance.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Vlahos was denied a statutory or constitutional speedy trial when his trial occurred 192 days after arraignment.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy conviction without independent corroboration of coconspirator or accomplice testimony.
3. Whether the trial court committed plain error by failing to instruct the jury regarding accomplice and coconspirator testimony.
4. Whether the trial court committed plain error by failing to determine that particular witnesses were accomplices or coconspirators or submit that issue to the jury.
5. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request instructions concerning accomplice and coconspirator testimony.

Disposition

affirmed