Case Title: UMBACH v. STATE

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2002-03-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
UMBACH v. STATE2002 WY 4242 P.3d 1006Case Number: 00-212Decided: 03/20/2002

OCTOBER TERM, A.D. 2001

 

                                                                                                            

 

PRESTON 
KEITH UMBACH, 

Appellant(Defendant),

 

v.

 

THE 
STATE OF WYOMING, 

Appellee(Plaintiff).

 

 

Appeal 
from the District Court of Sheridan County

The 
Honorable John C. Brackley, Judge 

 

Representing 
Appellant:

Sylvia 
Lee Hackl, State Public Defender; Donna D. Domonkos, Appellate Counsel.  Argument by Ms. Domonkos.

 Representing 
Appellee:

Gay 
Woodhouse, Wyoming Attorney General; Paul S. Rehurek, Deputy Attorney General; 
D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General.  Argument by Mr. 
Pauling.

 

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

 

  

GOLDEN, 
Justice. 

[¶1]           
The 
Wyoming Legislature, through Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 7-13-1101 through -1107, has 
authorized the Wyoming Department of Corrections (Department) to impose an 
intensive supervision program (ISP) upon consenting probationers and 
parolees.  That same statute 
authorizes the Department to impose administrative sanctions as an alternative 
to probation or parole revocation for probationers and parolees who violate ISP 
rules and restrictions.  While on 
court-ordered probation, Appellant Preston Keith Umbach (Umbach) was placed in 
ISP by the Department and three times received a jail sentence as an 
administrative sanction.  The State 
then requested that the trial court revoke his probation and impose a prison 
sentence for the same conduct for which the Department had imposed a jail 
sentence as an administrative sanction.  
At the time of his probation revocation hearing, Umbach filed a motion to 
dismiss, arguing that the statute did not allow the State to seek both an 
administrative sanction and probation revocation and the imposition of both 
constituted a double jeopardy violation.  
The trial court determined that the Legislature could not act to limit 
the court's authority to revoke probation for violation of its conditions of 
probation.  

 

[¶2]           
The 
primary issue in this appeal is the effect of the statute on both the State and 
the court that has imposed probation.  
We hold that when the State chooses to place a probationer in ISP and 
then impose a jail sentence as an administrative sanction, the State may not 
also seek revocation of probation.  
Should the State choose to seek probation revocation rather than an 
administrative sanction, the statute's express terms do not limit the court's 
authority to determine whether its conditions of probation have been violated 
and revoke probation and impose a prison sentence.

 

[¶3]      We reverse the 
trial court's order denying Umbach's motion to dismiss the request to revoke 
probation and remand this case for the district court to dismiss the petition to 
revoke probation.

 

 

ISSUE

 

[¶4]           
The 
parties generally agree that the sole issue for our review 
is:

 

Whether 
Umbach was denied his constitutional right under the United States Constitution, 
Fifth Amendment, and the Wyoming Constitution, Art. 1 § 11, to be free from 
being placed twice in jeopardy?

 

 

FACTS

 

[¶5]           
On 
January 23, 1998, when he was eighteen years old and still in high school, 
Umbach was arrested for burglary of a church.  By plea agreement, he received first 
offender felony status and probation under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-13-301.  On August 3, 1998, he violated probation 
and his first offender status was revoked.  
He received a sentence of not less than one year nor more than three 
years at the Wyoming State Penitentiary.  
This sentence was suspended, and Umbach was placed on 
probation.

 

[¶6]           
In 
February 1999, Umbach tested positive for both methamphetamine and marijuana and 
admitted to having consumed both earlier in the month.  The Department placed him in the 
intensive supervision program authorized under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-13-1102.  As a condition of his ISP, Umbach agreed 
that he would remain drug and alcohol free. On October 28, 1999, a breath test 
requested by an ISP agent confirmed that Umbach had consumed alcohol.  On December 28, 1999, a urinalysis 
requested by an ISP agent confirmed that Umbach had consumed marijuana.  On April 20, 2000, a urinalysis 
requested by Wyoming Division of Probation and Parole confirmed that Umbach had 
consumed amphetamine and methamphetamine.  
ISP conducted a formal sanction hearing for all of the above 
misbehaviors, and Umbach admitted violating the ISP condition that he would 
remain drug and alcohol free.  He 
received a five-day jail sentence for the first violation, a ten-day jail 
sentence for the second violation, and a thirty-day jail sentence for the third 
violation.  The thirty-day sentence 
began on May 1, 2000, and on May 9, 2000, a petition to revoke probation was 
filed.

 

[¶7]           
On 
May 22, 2000, Umbach filed a motion to dismiss the revocation petition on the 
grounds that the statutory sanctions were an alternative to probation revocation 
and, because he had already been sanctioned for the violations by being placed 
in jail, revocation of probation was a violation of double jeopardy.  The trial court denied the motion to 
dismiss.  Umbach admitted the 
violations, and his probation was revoked.  
By agreement, Umbach's admissions permitted him to file a timely notice 
of appeal and remain free on an appeal bond.  This appeal 
followed.

 

 

DISCUSSION

 

Double 
Jeopardy

 

[¶8]           
This 
Court recognizes that although the double jeopardy clauses found in Wyo. Const. 
art. 1, § 11, and in the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution "are 
dissimilar in language, they have the same meaning and are coextensive in 
application."   Amrein v. 
State, 836 P.2d 862, 864 (Wyo. 1992) (quoting Vigil v. State, 563 P.2d 1344, 1350 (Wyo. 1977)).  
The double jeopardy clause provides an accused three 
protections.  It protects the 
accused who has been acquitted against a second prosecution for the same 
offense; it protects the accused who has been convicted against a second 
prosecution for the same offense; and it protects the accused against multiple 
punishments for the same offense.  
Amrein, 836 P.2d  at 864.  
Thus, Umbach's contention that double jeopardy law prohibits 
administrative sanctions and probation revocation requires that we determine the 
legislative intent underlying Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-13-1107.  See Amrein, 836 P.2d  at 
864.

 

[¶9]           
Statutory 
construction and legislative intent will control the determination whether ISP 
sanctions are criminal punishment. Applicable general principles of statutory 
construction include:  if the 
language is clear and unambiguous, we must abide by the plain meaning of the 
statute; if a statute is ambiguous, we may resort to general principles of 
construction; an ambiguous statute is one whose meaning is uncertain and 
susceptible of more than one meaning; and in a criminal statute, an ambiguity 
should be resolved in favor of lenity.  
Amrein, 836 P.2d  at 864-65.

 

[¶10]       
The 
Legislature has authorized the Department to establish an intensive supervision 
program for probationers and parolees, and has granted it general supervisory 
authority over all probationers and parolees participating in the program.  Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 7-13-1101, -1102(a), 
and -1102(d) (LexisNexis 2001).  An 
intensive supervision program established under this article may 
require:

 

(i) 
Electronic monitoring, regimented daily schedules or itineraries, house arrest, 
telephone contact, drug testing, curfew checks or other supervision methods 
which facilitate contact with supervisory personnel;

(ii) 
Community service work, family, educational or vocational counseling, treatment 
for substance abuse, mental health treatment and monitoring of restitution 
orders and fines previously imposed on the participant;  and

(iii) 
Imposition of supervision fees to be paid by participants.

 

Wyo. 
Stat. Ann. § 7-13-1102(b) (LexisNexis 2001).

 

[¶11]       
Participation 
in intensive supervised probation is a matter of grace and not of right.  Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-13-1103(a) 
(LexisNexis 2001).  No person is 
allowed to participate unless the person agrees in writing to abide by all of 
the Department's rules and regulations for operation of the program and agrees 
to submit to administrative sanctions which may be imposed under Wyo. Stat. Ann. 
§ 7-13-1107.  Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
7-13-1103(b) (LexisNexis 2001).  
Under certain circumstances, the Legislature also permits a sentencing 
court to place a defendant in this program as a condition of probation.  Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-13-1105 (LexisNexis 
2001).  Section 1107 
provides:

 

§ 
7-13-1107. Administrative sanctions for program 
violations.

 

(a) 
The department is authorized to establish by rule and regulation a system of 
administrative sanctions as an 
alternative 
to probation or parole revocation for probationers and parolees who violate the 
rules and restrictions of an intensive supervision program established under 
this article.

 

(b) 
Authorized sanctions may include:

 

(i) 
Loss or restriction of privileges;

(ii) 
Community service; and

(iii) 
Restrictions on personal liberty including:

(A) 
Detention in county jail for a period not exceeding thirty (30) 
days;

(B) 
Placement in a residential community correctional program for a period not to 
exceed sixty (60) days.

 

Wyo. 
Stat. Ann. § 7-13-1107(a), (b) (LexisNexis 2001) (emphasis 
added).

 

[¶12]       
We 
have added emphasis to the language "as an alternative" because, as the State 
concedes, this language plainly evinces a legislative intent that when an ISP 
participant violates the program's rules and regulations, the State must choose 
between subjecting an ISP participant to administrative sanctions under this 
statute or revoking his probation.  
If the State decides that a probationer who has violated a program rule 
should be subjected to administrative sanctions, then it shall not also seek 
probation revocation for that violation.  
The State may, however, forgo administrative sanctions and file a 
petition for probation revocation with the sentencing court.  

 

[¶13]       
The 
State concedes that both administrative sanctions and probation revocation were 
sought by it, and Umbach received jail time as an administrative sanction and 
had his probation revoked and his burglary sentence imposed.  These dual actions are prohibited by the 
statute's express terms, and the State's petition to revoke probation violated 
the statute.  The State proposes 
that a proper remedy for the State's violation is to credit Umbach's burglary 
sentence imposed by the probation revocation with the ISP jail time served for 
his administrative sanction.  We 
hold, however, that the proper remedy is to reverse the order revoking probation 
and remand for the district court to grant Umbach's motion to dismiss the 
State's Petition for Probation Revocation.

 

[¶14]       
Where 
statutory interpretation is conclusive and proper application of the statute 
leaves no basis for further discussion of the constitutional issue raised in 
this case, we will not address it.  
In Re Lepage, 2001 WY 26, ¶18, 18 P.3d 1177, ¶18 (Wyo. 2001).  Because the plain language of Wyo. Stat. 
Ann. § 7-13-1107 does not permit both actions taken by the State against Umbach 
and the State's statutory violation requires that his motion to dismiss be 
granted, we will not further consider the double jeopardy concerns raised by 
Umbach.

 

[¶15]       
Reversed 
and remanded with instructions to grant Umbach's motion to dismiss the petition 
for revocation of probation.