Summary 2007 WY 186

Summary of Decision issued November 20, 2007

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses "Universal Citation" and was given an "official" citation when issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will note that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation, the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion should include the reporter page number. If you need assistance, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]

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

Case Name: Thomas v. State

Citation: 2007 WY 186

Docket Number: 06-266

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, the Honorable Edward L. Grant, Judge

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Dian M. Lozano, State Public Defender, PDP; Tina N. Kerin, Appellate Counsel; David E. Westling, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Leda M. Pojman, Assistant Attorney General.

Issues: Whether the district court’s failure to advise Appellant pursuant to W.R.Cr.P. 11(b) was harmless. Whether the State materially and substantially breached the plea agreement.

Facts/Discussion: Pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant pled no contest to one count of attempted second degree murder and two counts of aggravated assault and battery.
Standard of Review: The issue of whether the district court adequately advised Appellant of the consequences of his plea is a question of law the Court reviews de novo.
Appellant claimed his pleas were not knowing and voluntary because the district court did not advise him of the minimum and maximum penalties for his crimes, the possibility that restitution would be ordered or that his sentences could run consecutively. Rule 11 sets out the procedure for pleas. The Court reviewed the district court record on the advisements concerning the possible penalties attendant to his crimes. Thus while Appellant was informed that he could be subject to the maximum penalties authorized by law for his crimes, the district court did not advise him about the specific minimum or maximum penalties associated with any of his crimes. At the change of plea hearing the district court did not recite the penalties for the attempted second degree murder charge or the aggravated assault charges. The Court has consistently held that because strict compliance with Rule 11 is required, error in the plea acceptance procedure demands reversal unless the State can demonstrate it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court has stated the district court must make requisite advisements on the record in accordance with Rule 11. The Court explained in Major v. State that the competency evaluation was not intended to answer the question of whether Appellant had sufficient understanding of the nature of the charges and penalties associated with the charges to effectively enter no contest pleas. Rule 11 specifically requires the court to personally question the defendant about his knowledge of the maximum penalty for his crime.
The Court noted that in determining whether error in the case was harmless, they were cognizant of the fact that the State’s recommended sentence on the attempted murder charge and the sentence actually imposed was the lowest possible sentence allowed under the law. However, the district court failed to inform Appellant of the penalties associated with his crimes which contributed to the error in the plea agreement. Had the district court recited the minimum and maximum at the change of plea hearing, the fact that the State could not recommend a maximum sentence of 20 years would have become obvious. Thus the district court’s acceptance of a plea agreement which included an illegal sentence recommendation further undermined the validity of Appellant’s no contest plea.

Holding: The Court concluded the district court failed to advise Appellant in accordance with Rule 11 and the record showed the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore they reversed and remanded the district court’s decision.
It was unnecessary for the Court to consider the remainder of Appellant’s arguments about the validity of his pleas or whether the State materially breached the plea agreement.

Reversed and remanded.

J. Kite delivered the opinion.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/2fbavx .