Rule 13.01 Generally
Rule 13. The Petition for a Writ of Review
Rule Text
(a) All applications to the Supreme Court for interlocutory or extraordinary relief from orders of the chancery court and district courts, including such applications as are established by statute (e.g., Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 5-2-119 and 7-14-107), may be made as petitions for a writ of review. Granting of a petition is within the discretion of the Supreme Court.
(b) All applications to a district court for interlocutory or extraordinary relief from orders of administrative agencies and the municipal and circuit courts, including such applications as are established by statute, may be made as petitions for a writ of review. Granting of a petition is within the discretion of the district court.
(c) The petitioner for a writ of review shall specifically state the nature of review desired and the relief sought.
(d) Writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto or any prerogative writ shall be treated as a writ of review under these rules. In any petition made to the Supreme Court for a writ to be issued in the exercise of its original jurisdiction and for which an application might have been lawfully made to some other court, the petition shall set forth the circumstances why, in the opinion of the petitioner, the writ should issue originally from the Supreme Court and not from such other court. The petition shall also name the real party or parties in interest, or whose interest would be directly affected by the proceedings.
Amendment history: Amended May 4, 2001, effective September 1, 2001; amended December 2, 2002, effective January 6, 2003; amended April 6, 2015, effective July 1, 2015; amended August 23, 2017, effective November 1, 2017; amended October 12, 2021, effective January 1, 2022; amended December 11, 2024, effective March 1, 2025. Application for writ of review proper. — In defendant’s aggravated assault case, where the district court concluded that the prosecution’s conduct provided grounds for a mistrial, granted the defense motion, and dismissed the case with prejudice on the basis of speedy trial concerns, the State’s writ of review was appropriate. The State had no other adequate remedy, the issues presented were of constitutional magnitude and public importance, and it was not established that allowing the writ would place defendant in jeopardy for a second time. State v. Newman, 2004 WY 41, 88 P.3d 445, 2004 Wyo. LEXIS 48 (Wyo. 2004). Appeal notice treated as petition for writ of review. — Petitioner’s notice of appeal was treated as a petition for writ of review and was therefore not untimely, since grant of such a petition was discretionary with supreme court; failure to file petition within eleven day time limit was not jurisdictional, but merely a factor for court to consider in its disposition of petition. Kittles v. Rocky Mt. Recovery, Inc., 1 P.3d 1220, 2000 Wyo. LEXIS 77 (Wyo. 2000). State prisoner’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1) motion was properly denied because the record made clear that his § 2254 petition was not timely filed under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2244(d) in that the district court properly included the entire time from the filing of the state postconviction motion to the eventual denial of certiorari of his conviction for bribery under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-5-102(a). An additional 45-days of statutory tolling was not required because the prisoner’s appeal of the denial of postconviction relief was not the procedurally proper manner to seek review pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-14-107 and Wyo. R. App. P. 13.01(a). Stanton v. Wyoming AG, 401 Fed. Appx. 313, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 21199 (10th Cir. Wyo. 2010), cert. denied, 563 U.S. 910, 131 S. Ct. 1798, 179 L. Ed. 2d 666, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 2423 (U.S. 2011). Appeal notice treatable as writ of certiorari. — There is no inhibition in the court rules, the state constitution or any legislative mandate that precludes the Supreme Court from, on its own motion, considering a notice of appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari and proceeding with review on that basis. Whenever the court determines that review by certiorari is in the best interest of the state, or its citizens, it may be invoked. Alexander v. United States, 803 P.2d 61 (Wyo. 1990). Certiorari not granted if alternative remedy available. — Review pursuant to certiorari is never granted lightly, especially if an adequate alternative remedy is available. Alexander v. United States, 803 P.2d 61 (Wyo. 1990).