Summary 2006 WY 71

Summary of Decision issued June 8, 2006

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. Please note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library for assistance.]

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: Monjaras v. State

Citation: 2006 WY 71

Docket Number: 05-147

Appeals from the District Court of Laramie County, the Honorable Dan Spangler, Judge (Retired).

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Ronald G. Pretty, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; Paul Rehurek, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Eric A. Johnson, Director; Jonathan Haidsiak, Student Director; Nathan Wilson, Student Intern of the Prosecution Assistance Program. Argument by Mr. Johnson.

Date of Decision: June 8, 2006.

Issue: Whether the court abused its discretion when it sentenced Appellant to prison.

Holding: Appellant pled guilty to two counts of third-degree sexual assault and was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of four to five years. He appeals claiming that the district court abused its discretion by imposing a prison sentence instead of probation.
Sentencing decisions are within the broad discretion of the trial court. The Court will not set aside a sentence that is within the statutory limits absent a finding of a clear abuse of discretion. Under the abuse of discretion standard of review, the Court’s core inquiry is the reasonableness of the trial court’s choice.
Appellant primarily presents a global complaint concerning the district court’s failure to provide an explanation for the sentence it imposed. Appellant’s policy argument was supported by personal preference which was insufficient to persuade the Court to alter their longstanding precedent which does not require trial courts to render specific findings in sentencing matters.
The decision not to grant probation is discretionary. The trial court must consider an application for probation and if not granted, include a statement in the written statement expressly acknowledging that it considered the application. The Court reviewed the record and was convinced that the district court considered and rejected the option of placing Appellant on probation.
The Court reviewed the reasonableness of the sentence considering the crime, its attendant circumstances and the character of the defendant. Appellant faced a possible maximum prison sentence of thirty years and received two concurrent four–to-five year sentences. After review, the Court stated that the district court did take into account Appellant’s particular mitigating circumstances, including letters, petitions and statements presented on his behalf. The district court did not abuse its discretion.

J. Golden delivered the opinion for the court.

Affirmed.

Link to the case: http://tinyurl.com/opwol .