Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the appellant challenged the district court's denial of his petition for an order nunc pro tunc, which sought to vacate a $50 surcharge imposed for crime victims' compensation following his 1989 convictions for aggravated burglary and first-degree sexual assault. The core legal issue revolved around whether the surcharge should be vacated due to non-payment within the ten-day period mandated by Wyo.Stat. 1-40-119. The appellant cited previous cases, arguing that failure to pay the surcharge within the specified timeframe rendered the order unlawful. However, the Wyoming Supreme Court clarified that while non-payment could lead to contempt proceedings, it did not invalidate the surcharge order. Furthermore, the court noted that the appellant's use of an order nunc pro tunc was procedurally incorrect, as such orders are intended to correct clerical inaccuracies rather than alter judgments. The court emphasized legislative intent to ensure timely payment and upheld the district court's authority to initiate collection proceedings. Ultimately, the Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision, denying the appellant's petition for an order nunc pro tunc.
Legal Issues Addressed
Imposition and Payment of Crime Victims' Compensation Surchargesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court affirmed that the surcharge must be imposed and paid within ten days, and failure to do so may lead to contempt, but the order remains lawful despite non-payment.
Reasoning: The statute explicitly states that a surcharge must be imposed and paid within ten days, and failure to do so can lead to contempt proceedings.
Legislative Intent and Timely Paymentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court emphasized the legislative intent was to encourage timely payments, affirming the district court's authority to pursue collection for non-compliance.
Reasoning: The court emphasized that the legislative intent was to encourage timely payments, and the district court had the authority to initiate collection proceedings for non-compliance.
Order Nunc Pro Tuncsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that an order nunc pro tunc is inappropriate for altering judgments as it is intended only to correct inaccuracies.
Reasoning: Furthermore, the court noted that Johnson did not follow the correct procedural framework for an order nunc pro tunc, which is meant for correcting inaccuracies in orders, not for altering judgments.