Summary 2007 WY 193

Summary of Decision issued December 11, 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: Sinning, Jr. v. State

Citation: 2007 WY 193

Docket Number: S-07-0081

Appeal from the District Court of Campbell County, the Honorable John R. Perry, Judge

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Diane M. Lozano, Public Defender, PDP; Tina N. Kerin, Appellate Counsel; Donna D. Domonkos, 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.

Issue: Whether the district court abused its discretion by revoking Mr. Sinning’s probation.

Facts/Discussion: Appellant pled guilty to one count of forgery and one count of conspiracy to commit forgery. The district court sentenced him to a period of incarceration in the Wyoming State Penitentiary but recommended him for the boot camp program. Later, the district court modified the sentence so that upon successful completion of boot camp, Appellant’s original sentence would be suspended and he would be placed on probation. One of the conditions of probation was that he be accepted into and complete an Adult Community Corrections (ACC) program. He did not complete the program as required and after a hearing the district court revoked his probation and reinstated the original sentence.
Standard of Review: A district court’s decision to revoke probation and impose a sentence is discretionary and will not be disturbed unless the record shows a clear abuse of discretion.
Probation revocation proceedings are governed by W.R.Cr.P.39. Notice to a probationer of the grounds for revocation is fundamental and failure to provide such notice is a defect affecting a substantial right. The Court stated that in Mapp, they applied the standards under circumstances quite similar to those in the instant case.
The Court reviewed the record of the instant case and stated it presented abundant evidence that the district court made a conscientious judgment to revoke Appellant’s probation. The testimony during the adjudicatory phase was uncontested and Appellant’s testimony in the dispositional phase did not persuade the district court that the information contained in the termination report should be disregarded.

Holding: Appellant was afforded due process of law prior to the revocation. In considering whether to revoke his probation, the district court was entitled to look to reports submitted to the court by authorized agencies for guidance. The reports together with Appellant’s testimony supported the district court’s determination that his probation should be revoked and the original sentence reinstated.

Affirmed.

J. Kite delivered the opinion.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/3ceud5 .