Summary 2011 WY 56

Summary of Decision March 30, 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: Scott v. State

Citation: 2011 WY 56

Docket Number: S-10-0139

URL: http://wyomcases.courts.state.wy.us/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=461897

Appeal from the District Court of Campbell County, Honorable John C. Brooke, Judge

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Diane M. Lozano, State Public Defender; Tina N. Kerin, Appellate Counsel.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Bruce A. Salzburg, Wyoming Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Paul S. Rehurek, Senior Assistant Attorney General.

Date of Decision: March 30, 2011

Facts: The appellant was convicted of multiple counts of sexual assault, attempted sexual assault, and sexual abuse of a minor. The appellant asserts that the district court abused its discretion in failing to strike certain portions of the presentence investigation (PSI) report prior to sentencing.

Issues: Whether the district court abused its discretion when it denied the appellant’s motion to strike from the PSI report the sentencing recommendations of the probation and parole agent.

Holdings: Trial courts have broad discretion when imposing sentence to consider a wide range of factors about the defendant and the crime. They are free, in the exercise of their sentencing discretion, to consider victim impact statements, PSIs and other factors relating to the defendant and his crimes in imposing an appropriate sentence within the statutory range.

The preparer of a presentence report is to be a neutral and independent participant in the sentencing process. It necessarily follows that a parole or probation officer acts on behalf of an independent judiciary, not as an agent of the state, in preparing a presentence report. Like the sentencing court, the preparer of a presentence report is neither a party to nor bound by a plea agreement between the defendant and the state and, therefore, cannot breach the terms of that agreement in preparing the report. In the present action, the Appellant argues that the PSI writer did not make a neutral, rational recommendation and was “solely a victim advocate, and not a neutral factfinder for the trial court. However, it is common and appropriate for a PSI writer to make a sentencing recommendation. A sentencing recommendation contained in a PSI is one of the factors that a court may properly consider in determining the appropriate sentence to impose. A PSI writer’s recommendation that the sentencing deviate from the terms of the plea agreement is not inconsistent with the recognized role of a probation and parole officer compiling a PSI report. However, the recommendation may not be erroneous, extreme, inflammatory, or argumentative, and should not contain indications of personal animosity toward the appellant or undue sympathy for the victims. The recommendations made by the PSI author in the present action, when read and considered in their entirety, simply do not lead to the conclusion that they were inappropriate and should have been stricken. Although the PSI author urges the district court to make certain sentencing decisions, those recommendations do not possess the traits that have been condemned in the past. Therefore, it cannot be said that the district court abused its discretion when it denied the appellant’s motion to strike from the PSI report the sentencing recommendations of the probation and parole agent.

Affirmed.

J. Voigt delivered the opinion for the court.