Poole v. State

152 P.3d 412 (Wyo. 2007) · Supreme Court of Wyoming · February 28, 2007 · No. 05-209; 05-210

Summary

The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed Roger Karl Poole’s convictions for being a felon in possession of a firearm and reckless endangerment. The court held that Wyoming’s felon-in-possession statute requires knowledge that the possessed instrument is a firearm, but does not require knowledge of the defendant’s status as a convicted felon. The court also rejected Poole’s ineffective-assistance claim and found that the guilty plea had an adequate factual basis.

Court
Supreme Court of Wyoming
Writing for the Court
Justice Golden; Justice Burke; Justice Hill; Justice Kite; Justice Voigt
Jurisdiction
Wyoming
Decision date
February 28, 2007
Docket number
05-209; 05-210
Procedural posture
Poole appealed after pleading guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and reckless endangering. He challenged the validity of his guilty plea to the firearm-possession charge, arguing that the plea lacked an adequate factual basis and was not knowing and voluntary because of ineffective assistance of counsel.
Standard of review
The guilty-plea hearing is reviewed as a whole to determine whether procedural requirements were satisfied. An ineffective-assistance claim requires proof on the record of deficient performance and resulting prejudice; prejudice in the guilty-plea context requires a reasonable probability that the defendant would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on trial.
Precedential value
Published Wyoming Supreme Court opinion; precedential.
Parties
Roger Karl Poole v. State of Wyoming
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

criminal procedureplea bargainingstatutory interpretationmens reaineffective assistance

Practice areas

criminal lawcriminal procedureconstitutional criminal procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the district court accepted Poole's guilty plea to felon in possession of a firearm without an adequate factual basis under Wyoming Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(f).
  2. Whether Wyoming Statutes § 6-8-102 requires proof that the defendant knew he was a convicted felon when he possessed the firearm.
  3. Whether Poole's guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary because counsel allegedly provided ineffective assistance by failing to recognize his asserted pardon-based defense.

Holdings

  1. Section 6-8-102 does not require the State to prove that a defendant knew he was a convicted felon. The statute requires proof that the defendant previously was convicted of a violent felony that had not been pardoned and thereafter knowingly possessed a firearm.
  2. The factual basis was sufficient because it established that Poole knowingly possessed a firearm and was a convicted felon who had not been pardoned. The district court therefore did not err by accepting the guilty plea.
  3. Counsel was not constitutionally ineffective because the alleged defense—that Poole believed his prior felony conviction had been pardoned—was not legally viable under § 6-8-102.

Key quotations

The only mens rea requirement for a conviction is knowledge that the instrument possessed is a firearm. (414)
Despite Poole's afgument to the contrary, there is no requirement that a defendant have knowledge of his status as a convicted felon in order to be convicted as a felon in possession of a firearm under § 6-8-102. (415)

Factual background

After a dispute at Poole's residence, Poole retrieved a .22-caliber pistol, displayed it, and ordered several people to leave. When the individuals attempted to drive away in a truck, Poole fired the pistol, striking the truck's front fender and tire. Poole had previously been convicted of a violent felony in North Dakota, and he contended that he reasonably believed the conviction had been pardoned.

Procedural history

The district court accepted Poole's guilty pleas after a change-of-plea hearing at which Poole and the State supplied factual bases. The court sentenced him to concurrent terms of one to three years on the firearm conviction and one year on the reckless-endangering conviction. The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the firearm conviction and summarily affirmed the reckless-endangering conviction because Poole presented no argument challenging it.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…