Robinson v. State

ROSE, Justice.

Except for appellant Robinson’s contention that her sentence was excessive, this appeal is, in law and fact, almost identical to Cronin v. State, 678 P.2d 370 (1984). The only difference between the Cronin appeal and the first issue in the case at bar is that in Cronin the defendant was charged with “aiding and abetting,” by fraudulent means, the violation of § 35-7-1033(a)(iii), W.S.1977, which provides:

“(a) It is unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally:

* * * * * ;|:

“(iii) To acquire or obtain possession of a controlled substance by misrepresentation, fraud, forgery,…