Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

745 P.2d 556

Diefenderfer v. State

Wyoming Supreme Court

Decided November 19, 1987

Wyoming Supreme Court · decided 1987-11-19

Relies on McGuire v. McGuire · Padlock Ranch, Inc. v. Washakie Needles Irrigation District

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1987-11-19

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently February 2012

4 state decisions

201987199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

CARDINE, Justice.

¶1Appellant Daniel W. Diefenderfer pled guilty to third-degree sexual assault following a reduction of charge plea agreement. He was sentenced to three to five years with all but a jail term of 11 months and five days suspended and was placed on four years probation. His jail sentence has been served. He was discharged from probation February 18, 1987. Thereafter, on March 2,1987, appellant filed a petition for post-conviction relief asking that the court vacate the judgment and sentence he had already completed. The court dismissed the petition for post-conviction relief, and appellant now appeals.

¶2We affirm.

¶3The bringing of a proceeding for post-conviction relief in Wyoming is governed by §§ 7-14-101 through 7-14-108, W.S. 1977. Section 7-14-101, W.S.1977, provided at the time appellant filed his petition:

“Any person imprisoned in the penitentiary who asserts that in the proceedings which resulted in his conviction there was a substantial denial of his rights under the constitution of the United States or of the state of Wyoming, or both, may institute proceedings under this act [§§ 7-14-101 to 7-14-108].” Section 7-14-101, supra, affords the rem-

¶4edy of post-conviction relief to persons imprisoned in the penitentiary. Appellant was not imprisoned in the penitentiary at the time of filing his petition nor was he in constructive custody of the state of Wyoming, he having been discharged from probation. The district court, therefore, was without jurisdiction under the post-conviction relief statute to entertain or decide appellant’s petition.

¶5For jurisdiction to exist, the court must have authority to accept the proceeding and the power to render a particular judgment. Padlock Ranch Inc. v. Washakie Needles Irrigation District, 50 Wyo. 253, 61 P.2d 410 (1936). “ ‘Jurisdiction’ is the power to hear and determine the matter in controversy between the parties.” McGuire v. McGuire, Wyo., 608 P.2d 1278, 1290 (1980). The jurisdiction of a court is found in the law. It is invoked by the bringing of a suit according to judicial procedure, meeting applicable statutory requirements. 21 Am.Jur.2d Criminal Law § 336 (1981).

¶6Appellant did not meet the statutory requirement that the petition for post-conviction relief be by a person imprisoned in the penitentiary. The district court was without jurisdiction to decide the matters presented in appellant’s petition for post-conviction relief. The order of the district court dismissing the petition is, therefore,

¶7Affirmed.

/745/p2d/556 · .json · Public domain