Summary 2011 WY 43

Summary of Decision March 10, 2011

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it is issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation to a quote the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion will need to have the reporter page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation from this, or any future opinion using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library and we will provide any needed assistance]

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

Case Name: Christopher Donald Howard v. State of Wyoming

Citation: 2011 WY 43

Docket Numbers: S-10-132

URL: http://wyomcases.courts.state.wy.us/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=461809

Appeal from the District Court of Carbon County, Honorable Wade E. Waldrip, Judge

Representing Appellant: Diane M. Lozano, State Public Defender; Tina N. Olson, Appellate Counsel; Eric M. Alden, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel.

Representing Appellee: Bruce A. Salzburg, Wyoming Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Jenny L. Craig, Assistant Attorney General.

Date of Decision: March 10, 2011

Facts: Appellant appeals the district court’s decision revoking his probation.

Issues: Whether the court abused its discretion by considering quadruple hearsay.

Holdings: Appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion by revoking his probation based on quadruple hearsay. Despite his attorney’s concession that only the dispositional phase was contested, Appellant argues that his defense related to both the adjudicative and dispositional phases. His defense was, ostensibly, that he was wrongfully terminated from VOA although he had not violated VOA rules.

As part of his argument, Appellant weaves in the assertion that his defense was related to both the dispositional phase and the adjudicative phase. He challenges case law that indicates that the adjudicatory phase is over once it is established that the probationer did not complete the program in question. Furthermore, he argues that the “fourth hand” information does not meet due process requirements, let alone minimal requirements required in the dispositional phase.

Based upon the evidence in the record and the evidence provided at the dispositional hearing, we affirm the district court’s conclusion that Appellant willfully violated the terms of his probation. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Appellant’s probation. Affirmed.

Justice Hill delivered the opinion for the court.