Case Title: RHONDA ABITBOL, a/k/a RHONDA VANHOUTEN V. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Citation: 

Docket Number: S-07-0118

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2008-03-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
RHONDA ABITBOL, a/k/a RHONDA VANHOUTEN V. THE STATE OF WYOMING2008 WY 28178 P.3d 415Case Number: S-07-0118, S-07-0186Decided: 03/14/2008
OCTOBER 
TERM, A.D. 2007

 
 
RHONDA 
ABITBOL, a/k/a RHONDA 
VANHOUTEN,Appellant(Defendant),v.THE STATE OF 
WYOMING,Appellee(Plaintiff).

 
 
Appeals 
from the DistrictCourtofNatronaCounty

The 
Honorable W. Thomas Sullins, Judge (No. S-07-0118)

The 
Honorable Scott W. Skavdahl (No. S-07-0186)

 
 

Representing 
Appellant:

Tina N. 
Kerin, Appellate Counsel, Wyoming Public Defender's Office; Diane E. Courselle, 
Director, and Ian Sonshine, Student Intern, of the Defender Aid Program.  Argument by Mr. 
Sonshine.

 
 

Representing 
Appellee:

Bruce A. 
Salzburg, Wyoming Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney General; 
D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General.  Argument by Mr. 
Pauling.

 
 
Before 
VOIGT, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, KITE, BURKE, JJ.

 
 

GOLDEN, 
Justice.

 
 
[¶1]      In this 
consolidated appeal, Appellant Rhonda Abitbol asserts error in the amount of 
presentence incarceration credit awarded in two criminal cases in which the 
sentences were ordered to run concurrently.  We affirm in part, reverse in part, and 
remand the case in No. S-07-0118 (District Court No. 16623) for entry of a new 
judgment and sentence consistent with this opinion.

 
 

ISSUE

 
 
[¶2]      Abitbol presents 
the following issue for our review:

 
 
Did the 
trial court impose an illegal sentence when it denied Ms. Abitbol credit for 
time served for: (1) presentence incarceration after her bond was withdrawn by a 
corporate surety[;] (2) time attributable to an unreasonable delay in 
sentencing[;] and (3) time attributable to unreasonably [sic] the delay in 
transporting her from custody in Arizona to 
Wyoming?

 
 
FACTS

 
 
[¶3]      During the 
execution of a search warrant at Abitbol's residence on March 29, 2005, officers 
discovered evidence of drug and financial crimes. Abitbol was subsequently 
arrested on April 2, 2005, and charged, in what was to become District Court No. 
16623, with possessing methamphetamine with the intent to deliver the same, 
possessing a felony amount of methamphetamine, and the unlawful use of a credit 
card.  Abitbol initially appeared 
before the circuit court on April 4 and was released on bond under specified 
conditions, including that she refrain from using alcohol and controlled 
substances.  She later waived her 
preliminary hearing and was bound over to district court.  

 
 
[¶4]      At her 
arraignment on May 17, Abitbol entered pleas of not guilty to the charges.  The district court, after having 
received information that Abitbol had violated the conditions of her bond 
release, remanded Abitbol to custody pending the issuance of a new bond in the 
amount of $7,500.  On May 20, a new 
bond was issued, and Abitbol was once again released from custody.  

 
 
[¶5]      A month later, on 
June 27, the State filed a Verified Motion to Revoke and Forfeit Bond and to 
Revoke the Order of Release and Issue Bench Warrant, wherein it noted 
methamphetamine use by Abitbol.  The 
following day, a bench warrant issued, and Abitbol was arrested on June 29.  On June 30, Abitbol's current bondsman 
also sought revocation of the bond, and the district court set a bond revocation 
hearing for July 22.  At that 
hearing, Abitbol admitted the bond violations alleged by the State, and the 
district court increased the amount of Abitbol's bond obligation.  A week later, on July 29, Abitbol again 
bonded out of custody.  

 
 
[¶6]      On August 9, 
2005, the State filed a three-count Information in circuit court charging 
Abitbol, in what was to become District Court No. 16747, with attempted credit 
card fraud, forgery, and endangering a child by permitting that child to remain 
in a place where methamphetamine was being processed, stored or ingested.  Abitbol was arrested on those charges on 
August 18, and bond was set at $5,000.  
Four days later, Abitbol's bondsman revoked her bond in No. 16623.  After a preliminary hearing on August 
25, Abitbol was bound over to the district court.  During this same time period, the State 
secured an amendment of the Information in No. 16623 and the dismissal of Count 
III in that case  the unlawful use of a credit card charge  because of an 
overlap between that charge and the first two counts alleged in No. 16747.  Abitbol was eventually released on bond 
in both cases on September 23.  

 
 
[¶7]      Before her 
release from custody, Abitbol's trial had commenced on the two remaining charges 
in No. 16623.  On September 13, the 
second day of trial, Abitbol opted to enter into a plea agreement that would 
dispose of both criminal cases.  
Pursuant to that agreement, Abitbol agreed to plead guilty in No. 16623 
to possessing a felony amount of methamphetamine in exchange for dismissal of 
the remaining charge.  In No. 16747, 
Abitbol agreed to plead guilty to one of the property crimes, and the State 
agreed to dismiss the other charges.  
The parties also agreed that the sentences in both cases would run 
concurrently, with the State capping its sentencing request to prison terms of 
four to six years.  That same day, 
Abitbol entered her guilty plea in No. 16623.  

 
 
[¶8]      Thereafter, 
Abitbol failed to appear for her January 3, 2006, trial date in No. 16747 and 
her January 10, 2006, sentencing hearing in No. 16623.  The district court ordered Abitbol's 
bonds in both cases to be forfeited and issued warrants for her arrest.  The State later discovered that Abitbol 
had fled to Arizona, where she was convicted on May 30, 
2006, for the crime of criminal impersonation.  For that crime, Abitbol was sentenced to 
six months of imprisonment, with thirteen days of presentence incarceration 
credit, to be followed by a mandatory consecutive term of "community 
supervision."  On September 20, the 
State sought her return to Wyoming, pursuant to the Interstate Agreement 
on Detainers Act (IADA), and took her into custody on its outstanding warrants 
on December 16, 2006.  

 
 
[¶9]      In No. 16623, the 
district court sentenced Abitbol on March 1, 2007, to imprisonment for four to 
six years, with twenty-six days credit for presentence incarceration.  The district court granted her credit 
for the time served from April 2 to April 4, 2005, from May 17 to May 20, 2005, 
and from October 18 to November 8, 2005, but denied her credit for the periods 
of confinement between June 29 and July 29, 2005, and August 18 and September 
23, 2005. Abitbol appealed from the judgment and sentence, which this Court 
docketed as No. S-07-0118.

 
 
[¶10]   In No. 16747, the district court 
held a change of plea hearing on January 24, 2007, at which time Abitbol entered 
a no contest plea to the charge of attempted credit card fraud.  The district court set the sentencing 
hearing for March 22, but continued it to accommodate a scheduling conflict 
encountered by defense counsel.  On 
June 1, the district court sentenced Abitbol to a term of imprisonment of four 
to six years, to be served concurrently with her sentence in No. 16623, and 
awarded her thirty-seven days credit for the period of confinement between 
August 18 and September 23, 2005.  
The district court denied Abitbol's request for additional presentencing 
credit.  The appeal in Docket No. 
S-07-0186 followed.  This Court 
subsequently entered an order consolidating both appeals.

 
 

STANDARD 
OF REVIEW

 
 
[¶11]   Generally, sentencing decisions are 
reviewed for an abuse of discretion.  
Capellen v. State, 2007 WY 
107, ¶ 11, 161 P.3d 1076, 1079 (Wyo. 2007).  A challenge to a trial court's award of 
presentence confinement credit, however, involves a question of law which this 
Court reviews de novo.  Doolittle v. State, 2007 WY 52, ¶ 9, 154 P.3d 350, 354 (Wyo. 2007); Manes v. 
State, 2007 WY 6, ¶ 7, 150 P.3d 179, 181 (Wyo. 2007).

 
 

DISCUSSION

 
 
[¶12]   Abitbol claims that her sentences 
in both cases are illegal because the district court did not properly credit her 
for presentencing incarceration.  
The law is well-settled that a criminal defendant is entitled to credit, 
against both the minimum and maximum sentence, for time spent in confinement 
prior to sentencing, provided that the confinement was due solely to a financial 
inability to post bond on the offense for which the defendant was convicted and 
awaiting disposition.  Doolittle, ¶ 18, 154 P.3d  at 356; Manes, ¶ 8, 150 P.3d  at 181; Gomez v. State, 2004 WY 15, ¶ 18, 85 P.3d 417, 421 (Wyo. 2004); Renfro v. 
State, 785 P.2d 491, 498 (Wyo. 1990).  The purpose of this rule is to ensure 
equal protection to defendants who are unable to post bond because of their 
indigence.  Gomez, ¶ 18, 85 P.3d  at 421.  A defendant, however, is not entitled to 
credit for confinement that would have persisted regardless of the defendant's 
financial ability to post bond on the charges for which the defendant is 
eventually convicted and sentenced.  
Id.; see also Merta v. State, 2007 WY 137, ¶ 10, 165 P.3d 456, 459-60 (Wyo. 2007); Wayt v. 
State, 912 P.2d 1106, 1110 (Wyo. 1996).

 
 
[¶13]   Initially, we note that Abitbol's 
various sentencing complaints are accompanied by a subsidiary claim, premised on 
Weedman v. State, 792 P.2d 1388 (Wyo. 
1990), that because she received concurrent sentences, the credit given against 
each sentence should be equally applied to the sentence in the other case.  Weedman, however, involved concurrent 
sentences imposed in a single case, and its rule has been limited to such 
circumstances.  Where, as in this 
case, a defendant is separately sentenced in two different cases and those 
sentences are ordered to run concurrently, the sentence in each case is to be 
credited only for the presentence incarceration attributable solely to the 
financial inability to post bond in that case, not for confinement that would 
have persisted due to the prosecution of the other case.  See Manes, ¶ 9, 150 P.3d at 181-82; Milladge v. State, 900 P.2d 1156, 
1160-61 (Wyo. 
1995).  Consequently, the mere fact 
that concurrent sentences were imposed does not afford Abitbol the requested 
relief.

 
 
[¶14]   Abitbol's first complaint concerns 
the district court's refusal to award her credit against her sentence in No. 
16623 for the thirty days she spent in custody between her arrest on the State's 
June 27, 2005, motion to revoke her existing bond and her July 29, 2005, release 
on the new bond.1  In Smith v. State, 988 P.2d 39, 40-41 (Wyo. 
1999), we held that a defendant is not entitled to credit for the time spent in 
custody awaiting proceedings relating to the revocation of bond because the 
confinement would have persisted regardless of the defendant's financial ability 
to post bond.  In accordance with Smith, we hold that the district court 
properly denied credit to Abitbol for the period of time between her June 29 
arrest and the July 22 bond revocation hearing, as that confinement was 
attributable solely to the pending bond revocation proceedings.  However, we find that the district erred 
in not granting her credit for the time spent in custody following the 
revocation hearing and the posting of the new bond.  In our opinion, the revocation 
proceedings at issue culminated on July 22 with the revocation of Abitbol's 
existing bond release, and that her continued detention after that date related 
solely to her financial inability to post the new bond imposed by the district 
court.  Therefore, we hold that 
Abitbol is entitled to seven days of credit for the time served from July 22 to 
July 29.

 
 
[¶15]   Abitbol next claims the district 
court erred in denying her credit in No. 16623 for the time served between 
August 18 and September 23, 2005.  
We disagree.  The record 
reflects that the confinement was initiated by Abitbol's arrest on the charges 
filed in No. 16747 and continued until she was released on bond in that case on 
September 23.  Although Abitbol's 
bond was revoked in No. 16623 after her arrest, and she was effectively confined 
in relation to both criminal cases, that period of confinement would have 
persisted in No. 16747 regardless of her bond posting capabilities in No. 
16623.  The district court granted 
Abitbol thirty-seven days of credit against her sentence in No. 16747.  Abitbol is not entitled to additional 
credit for that jail time against her sentence in No. 
16623.

 
 
[¶16]   Abitbol's third complaint involves 
the district court's refusal to grant her credit in No. 16747 as compensation 
for what she claims was an excessive delay in sentencing in that case.  She argues that sixty days of credit is 
necessary to remedy the district court's alleged violation of W.R.Cr.P. 
32(c)(1), which requires sentences to be imposed without unnecessary delay.  After a careful review of the record, we 
cannot agree with Abitbol's assessment that sentencing was unnecessarily 
delayed.

 
 
[¶17]   Abitbol's sentencing took place 
slightly more than four months after entering her plea, slightly more than two 
months after the initial scheduled sentencing hearing that was continued to 
accommodate a scheduling conflict encountered by defense counsel, and 
approximately one and a half months after the State  in Abitbol's stead  
sought a new setting for her sentencing hearing.  The record indicates Abitbol caused or 
contributed to much of the delay with which she now takes issue.  The delay in this case compares 
favorably to that which this Court found appropriate in Despain v. State, 774 P.2d 77, 82-83 
(Wyo. 1989), wherein the defendant was sentenced nearly eight months after 
entering his plea.  Under the 
circumstances presented in this case, we cannot fault the district court for 
denying her that credit.

 
 
[¶18]   In her final complaint, Abitbol 
contends, mostly for equitable reasons, that she should have been given credit 
in both cases because her incarceration in Arizona was extended, beyond the time 
she was required to serve on her conviction in that state, due to Wyoming's 
delay in transporting her from Arizona.  
In support of that contention, Abitbol notes that on May 30, 2006, she 
was sentenced in Arizona to serve six months of incarceration 
with thirteen days credit for time served.  
She calculates that the service of her entire sentence obligation was 
fulfilled on November 17, 2006, and that twenty-nine days passed before 
Wyoming took 
custody of her on December 16, 2006.  

 
 
[¶19]   Abitbol did not raise this issue 
below.  She presents it here for the 
first time without any factual basis supported by the record that Wyoming did 
not take custody of her at the first available moment after she served not only 
her prison sentence but also her required "community supervision" period.  Beyond that, Abitbol presents no cogent 
legal argument supporting the credit entitlement she now advances.  Given the state of affairs, we summarily 
reject her claim.  See Marshall v. State, 2005 WY 164, ¶ 12, 
125 P.3d 269, 274 (Wyo. 2005) (this Court does not consider claims unsupported 
by cogent argument and citation to legal authority).

 
 

CONCLUSION

 
 
[¶20]   We affirm the judgment and sentence 
of the district court underlying the appeal in No. S-07-0186 (District Court No. 
16747).  However, we hold Abitbol is 
entitled to additional credit in No. S-07-0118 (District Court No. 16623).  We therefore reverse the district 
court's sentence and remand with instructions to credit Abitbol with seven days 
for the time she served from July 22, 2005, to July 29, 
2005.

 

FOOTNOTES

 
 

1Abitbol 
claims an entitlement to thirty-one days credit, but that claim is based on a 
mistaken assertion that her incarceration commenced on June 28.  As previously noted, her arrest on the 
State's bond revocation motion occurred on June 
29.