Joseph Sena v. The State of Wyoming

Citation: 2022 WY 98Docket: S-21-0279

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court; August 17, 2022; Wyoming; State Supreme Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Joseph Sena appealed the district court's denial of his motions to withdraw no contest pleas in two dockets: Docket No. 34-682, for burglary, and Docket No. 34-683, for attempted voluntary manslaughter and aggravated assault. As part of a global plea agreement, Sena entered no contest pleas, resulting in the dismissal of the aggravated assault charge. He later challenged the State's comments at sentencing regarding witness availability. The critical issue on appeal was whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Sena's motions to withdraw his pleas.

Sena's no contest plea in Docket No. 34-682 was based on a home invasion burglary reported on October 8, 2017, where three men entered a residence, and the homeowner confronted them. In Docket No. 34-683, Sena pled no contest to attempted voluntary manslaughter related to an incident on January 17, 2019. The district court accepted the pleas based on affidavits of probable cause, which provided a factual basis, noting that no additional factual basis was required as long as the charging documents were complete and accurate.

Additionally, the district court imposed a concurrent sentence following the revocation of Sena's probation for a prior property destruction conviction, which he did not contest on appeal. The court affirmed the district court's decision, concluding that it did not abuse its discretion in denying the withdrawal of the pleas.

The owner observed an individual holding a glass pane from her screen door, which was later seized by investigating officers and submitted for forensic analysis. The Wyoming State Crime Laboratory identified 15 latent prints, including those belonging to the owner and Mr. Sena. In Docket No. 34-683, Mr. Sena faced charges of attempted first-degree murder and aggravated assault following a stabbing incident reported to the Cheyenne Police Department on January 17, 2019. Upon arrival at the scene, officers found the victim with multiple stab wounds and interviewed his girlfriend, who identified a gold-colored car and the suspects as Mr. Sena and Isaac Garcia. A neighbor’s relative witnessed the attack, and video surveillance captured the incident.

On July 28, 2020, Mr. Sena entered a plea agreement under Rule 11(e)(1)(B) of the Wyoming Rules of Criminal Procedure, pleading guilty to attempted voluntary manslaughter in exchange for the dismissal of the aggravated assault charge. The State recommended a concurrent sentence of 10 to 12 years, alongside a burglary charge in Docket No. 34-682, for which Mr. Sena pleaded guilty in exchange for a recommended concurrent sentence of 3 to 5 years. During the plea hearing on July 30, 2020, Mr. Sena requested to plead no contest, which the State accepted, leading to an amended plea agreement.

At the sentencing hearing on November 18, 2020, the State discussed difficulties with witness cooperation and argued for the agreed-upon sentence, while defense counsel contended that the State's comments violated the plea agreement's spirit. The State clarified its position regarding witness issues. Ultimately, the district court accepted the plea agreement and sentenced Mr. Sena to 3 to 5 years for burglary and 10 to 12 years for attempted voluntary manslaughter, both sentences to run concurrently with a probation revocation.

Mr. Sena filed a motion to substitute counsel and withdraw his no contest pleas nearly a month after his sentencing. He alleged that the State had withheld information about witness availability to pressure him into the plea agreement and claimed that his previous defense counsel was ineffective for not investigating the witnesses. At the January 11, 2021, hearing on the withdrawal motions, defense counsel presented arguments but no evidence. The district court denied the motions, finding no necessity to correct a manifest injustice. Subsequently, Mr. Sena filed a notice of appeal and a motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel under Wyoming Rule of Appellate Procedure 21. The district court held an evidentiary hearing and denied this motion as well, concluding that the defense counsel's investigation was reasonable given the evidence's strength, including video footage of the incident and the presence of witnesses under subpoena. The court determined that Mr. Sena suffered no prejudice since the available evidence strongly implicated him regardless of witness statements. Mr. Sena filed a third notice of appeal concerning the denial of his Rule 21 motion, leading to the consolidation of all appeals. He maintains that he was aggrieved by the State's comments about witness cooperation and reiterates his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Mr. Sena contests the district court's denial of his motions to withdraw his pleas but does not challenge the court's ruling on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, leading to a limited review focused solely on the plea withdrawal issue. Under W.R.Cr.P. 32(d), a defendant can withdraw a plea before sentencing upon showing a fair and just reason; however, after sentencing, the defendant must demonstrate "manifest injustice." This term refers to a situation that is unmistakable, unforeseen, and affects substantial rights, aiming to address fundamental defects resulting in a miscarriage of justice. Mr. Sena is responsible for proving the existence of manifest injustice, as established in prior case law.

Mr. Sena has a significant history of violence that predates the current allegations in Docket 34-683, which is the most serious case at hand. The State presented at sentencing that the victim did not appear for prosecution, having left for Mexico and not responding to communication. Two nearby witnesses recorded the attack on video but subsequently moved out of state to escape Mr. Sena. The victim's girlfriend, who was cooperative with the prosecution, also relocated due to fear of Mr. Sena. Additionally, a previous girlfriend, who was a victim in an unrelated aggravated assault case involving Mr. Sena, was hesitant to testify because of her fear. The incident in question occurred in the presence of two young children, one of whom reported a violent act by Mr. Sena during a forensic interview. The State argued that Mr. Sena was not suitable for supervised probation and recommended a 10 to 12-year sentence to ensure community safety and address witness intimidation issues. The plea agreement was reached in collaboration with law enforcement due to the resources required to manage Mr. Sena. In contrast, Mr. Sena’s defense claims that the State misrepresented the availability of witnesses, suggesting that the plea was unduly favorable due to the absence of testimony. The district court questioned how the defense would demonstrate the State's inability to present witnesses at trial, to which defense counsel referenced the sentencing transcript as sufficient evidence to claim manifest injustice.

The district court reviewed the sentencing transcript and concluded that the State had not claimed an inability to prove its case against Mr. Sena. While the State acknowledged difficulties with some witnesses, including the victim, it did not explicitly state it could not prove its case. The court noted that the State had alternative witnesses, including two who recorded the incident on video and had since moved out of state, as well as the victim's girlfriend, who was cooperative with the prosecution. 

The court found Mr. Sena had entered his no contest pleas voluntarily and with proper advisements. Consequently, the motion to withdraw the pleas was denied, as no manifest injustice had been demonstrated under Wyoming law. The court emphasized that it treats no contest pleas similarly to guilty pleas and has discretion in assessing claims of manifest injustice. The standard of review for the district court's findings is clearly erroneous, and the court concluded that the record supported its decision. The plea agreement was seen as a result of witness intimidation rather than an absence of witnesses or an inability to prove the case. Additionally, the State had issued subpoenas for multiple witnesses and forensic analysis relevant to the case, indicating it had a strong basis for prosecution.

Docket No. 34-683 records indicate the State issued subpoenas for 36 witnesses, including two eyewitnesses to the attempted voluntary manslaughter. One eyewitness, the victim's girlfriend, identified Mr. Sena as the assailant in a photo lineup and was noted for her cooperation with the prosecution. The other eyewitness, a minor, was subject to a forensic interview, and the State planned to call this child as a witness. The entire attack was captured on a time-stamped video, showing Mr. Sena attacking and stabbing the victim. Although the victim did not appear at the sentencing hearing, he had provided the State with his medical bills for restitution from Mr. Sena. The sentencing transcript shows ongoing communication and cooperation between the State and the victim. Mr. Sena’s appeal did not demonstrate a 'fundamental defect' or 'manifest injustice' that would warrant withdrawal of his no contest pleas. The record supports the district court's decision, indicating no lack of witnesses or inability to prove the State's case, but rather a fear among witnesses which contributed to the plea agreement. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of Mr. Sena's motions.