Case Title: TERRY NEIDLINGER, SR. V. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2007-12-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
TERRY NEIDLINGER, SR. V. THE STATE OF WYOMING2007 WY 204173 P.3d 376Case Number: 06-292, S-07-0062Decided: 12/18/2007
OCTOBER TERM, A.D. 2007

 
 
TERRY 
NEIDLINGER, SR.,Appellant(Defendant),v.THE STATE OFWYOMING,Appellee(Plaintiff).

 
 
Appeal 
from the DistrictCourtofLaramieCounty

 
 

Representing 
Appellant:

Diane M. 
Lozano, Wyoming State Public Defender; Tina N. Kerin, Appellate Counsel; David 
E. Westling, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel

 
 

Representing 
Appellee:

Patrick 
J. Crank, Wyoming Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney General; 
D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Daniel M. Fetsco, Senior 
Assistant Attorney General

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

 
 

GOLDEN, 
Justice.

 
 
[¶1]      In this 
consolidated appeal, Terry Neidlinger challenges the order of the district court 
revoking his probation and sentencing him to a term of incarceration.  We reverse and remand for further 
proceedings.

 
 
ISSUE

 
 
[¶2]      Neidlinger 
phrases his sole issue on appeal as follows:

 
 
The 
trial court's revocation of probation on the grounds that Terry Neidlinger would 
not admit to sexual misconduct in treatment, despite the fact that he had 
entered a no contest plea, was an abuse of discretion.

 
 

FACTS

 
 
[¶3]      In February 2006, 
Neidlinger was charged with two counts of indecent liberties with a minor in 
violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-3-105(a) (LexisNexis 2005)1 and one count of third degree 
sexual assault in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-304(a)(iii) (LexisNexis 
2005).  Pursuant to a plea 
agreement, Neidlinger pled no contest to one count of indecent liberties on 
August 21, 2006, in exchange for dismissal of the other charges.  The State provided the factual basis for 
the plea:

 
 
Your 
Honor, if this made it to trial the state would produce evidence that 
established that on September 21st of 2005, 
that [AN] had disclosed to a Johnson Junior High counselor that in mid-August 
her father had taken her bra off and touched her breasts while he held her down 
and wrestled with her.  The 
defendant also had the victim's younger sister touch her breasts.  The defendant further squeezed and 
pinched the victim's breasts.  
Eventually, the victim got away.  

The 
defendant then told her to go to her room where he then took off her pants and 
then made her lay on the floor for several minutes while he discussed household 
issues.  

 
 
[¶4]      The district 
court expressed reservations about the no contest plea and Neidlinger's refusal 
to admit the criminal conduct but ultimately accepted the plea.  On November 28, 2006, the district court 
sentenced Neidlinger to a prison term of three to five years but suspended 
execution of that sentence in favor of four years supervised probation.  The probation conditions included 
requirements that Neidlinger participate in the Intensive Supervision Program 
(ISP), submit to a sex offender evaluation and successfully complete a sex 
offender treatment program.  
Neidlinger filed a notice of appeal from the Judgment and Sentence, and 
that appeal comprises Docket No. 06-292. 

 
 
[¶5]      On December 9, 
2006, and January 6, 2007, Neidlinger met with Charles Mueller, a sex offender 
therapist, at the behest of his probation agent.  During both meetings, Neidlinger refused 
to admit any inappropriate sexual behavior.  Because of Neidlinger's refusal to 
admit, Mueller did not suggest any further treatment.  

 
 
[¶6]      On January 11, 
2007, the State filed a petition to revoke Neidlinger's probation, alleging that 
Neidlinger had violated the terms of his probation.  The affidavit for revocation 
specifically alleged:

 
 
On or 
about January 6, 2007, said Defendant was terminated from sex offender 
counseling.

 
 
This is 
in direct violation of said Defendant's Judgment and Sentence of the Court, 
Condition Number 14, which states, "Defendant shall submit to and pay for a sex 
offender evaluation by a sex offender counselor approved of [by] the probation 
agent and successfully complete any subsequently recommended sex offender 
counseling at his own expense."

 
 
This is 
also a violation of said Defendant's ISP Agreement, signed and dated November 
29, 2006, Condition Number 6, which states, "I will submit to any and all 
evaluations deemed necessary by ISP agents, at my own expense, and adhere to any 
and all recommendations resulting from those evaluations," and Condition Number 
7, which states, "I will actively participate in any treatment/counseling and/or 
training programs recommended by ISP agents, at my own expense."  [Emphasis 
omitted.]

 
 
[¶7]      The district 
court conducted a revocation hearing on February 7, 2007.  At the conclusion of that hearing, the 
district court determined that Neidlinger had violated the terms of his 
probation.  Specifically, the 
district court concluded that, because he failed to admit any sexual misconduct, 
Neidlinger effectively failed to comply with the requirement that he submit to a 
sex offender evaluation.  The court 
revoked Neidlinger's probation and re-imposed the underlying three- to five-year 
prison sentence.  Neidlinger filed a 
notice of appeal from the order revoking his probation, and that appeal 
comprises Docket No. S-07-0062.  At 
Neidlinger's request, this Court consolidated the two 
appeals.

 
 

STANDARD 
OF REVIEW

 
 
[¶8]      We review a trial 
court's decision to revoke probation under the abuse of discretion 
standard.  Sami v. State, 2004 WY 23, ¶ 15, 85 P.3d 1014, 1019 (Wyo. 2004); Anderson v. State, 2002 WY 46, ¶ 25, 43 P.3d 108, 118 (Wyo. 2002).  "Determining 
whether the trial court abused its discretion involves the consideration of 
whether the court could reasonably conclude as it did, and whether it acted in 
an arbitrary or capricious manner."  
Dysthe v. State, 2003 WY 20, ¶ 
16, 63 P.3d 875, 883 (Wyo. 2003).

 
 

DISCUSSION

 
 
[¶9]      As a preliminary 
matter, in his brief Neidlinger does not present any argument directly 
challenging the legality of his conviction and sentence underlying the appeal in 
Docket No. 06-292.  Consequently, we 
summarily affirm in all respects the original Judgment and Sentence entered on 
November 30, 2006.

 
 
[¶10]   We now turn to the question whether 
the district court abused its discretion in revoking Neidlinger's 
probation.  The conflict between the 
parties comes down to whether Neidlinger was required to admit his criminal 
sexual conduct in order to comply with the probation requirement that he submit 
to a sex offender evaluation.  The 
district court stated during the revocation hearing:

 
 
            
I believe that the responsibility for determining what this judgment and 
sentence means is mine.  The 
responsibility for determining what the word means is mine.  In my mind Mr. Neidlinger still has not 
submitted himself to an evaluation.  
He refused to do that by refusing to admit that he had done anything 
wrong.  Submitting to an evaluation 
connotes several things.  It means 
calling up and saying, I'm here, I want to come to talk to you about it.  And then having a conversation about 
it.

 
 
            
Submitting to an evaluation also means that under the setting of this 
particular combination of circumstances that there must be an admission of 
responsibility.  Mr. Neidlinger has 
refused to admit that responsibility.

 
 
            
It is my conclusion as a finding of fact after hearing the evidence, 
after hearing Mr. Mueller testify, after hearing comments of counsel that by 
failing to admit that he did anything wrong, he failed to submit himself to an 
evaluation.

 
 
            
. . . He failed to admit that the allegations of his daughter, Mr. 
Neidlinger's daughter, were accurate and correct.  He failed to submit himself, he failed 
to present himself to the examination, and the evaluation of himself as a sex 
offender.

 
 
            
. . . .

 
 
            
So it is my finding that Mr. Neidlinger has violated the terms of his 
probation by failing to complete --  
and it's not even a close call in my mind -- submission means 
submission.  That means walking in 
and admitting what he did.  He 
failed to submit to an evaluation.  
I don't read that sentence the same way [Defense Counsel] does.  Mr. Mueller's testimony is very clear 
that there can be no recommendation until he submits, he gives up himself.  He presents himself without any 
reservation for evaluation.  He 
didn't do that.  He walked in and 
said I didn't do this crime.  And as 
a result, he didn't present himself morally, physically, mentally in any fashion 
to be evaluated. 

 
 
Neidlinger, 
of course, disagrees that he was under any compulsion to admit the criminal 
conduct as a requirement to fulfilling the condition of submission to an 
evaluation.  

 
 
[¶11]   Regrettably, we must agree with 
Neidlinger that admission of criminal conduct was not a probationary 
requirement.  The probationary 
condition at issue simply required Neidlinger to "submit to and pay for a sex 
offender evaluation by a sex offender counselor approved of by the probation 
agent."  While the district court 
certainly could have conditioned Neidlinger's probationary status on 
Neidlinger's admission of criminal conduct to the sex offender evaluator, it did 
not expressly do so.  By requiring 
Neidlinger to admit criminal conduct as part of the evaluation, the district 
court extended the probationary condition beyond its express language.    

 
 
[¶12]   Further, there is no indication in 
the record that Neidlinger was ever advised he would have to admit to criminal 
conduct in order to fulfill that condition.  As a matter of due process, a 
probationer must know and understand what is expected of him in order to 
maintain his probationary status.  
Otherwise, an alleged violation cannot be considered willful as required 
under law to justify a probation revocation.  Anderson, ¶ 26, 43 P.3d  at 118 ("in 
order to revoke probation for the violation of a condition of probation not 
involving the payment of money, the violation must be willful, or, if not 
willful, must presently threaten the safety of society") (citing Kupec v. State, 835 P.2d 359, 362 (Wyo. 
1992)); see also Johnson v. State, 6 P.3d 1261, 1263 (Wyo. 2000).  

 
 
[¶13]   In this case, Neidlinger never 
admitted to the criminal conduct underlying his conviction.  Under the circumstances, it is 
unreasonable to assume that Neidlinger would reverse course without express 
direction from the district court.   
Without such express direction, we believe Neidlinger could not have 
anticipated the district court's construction of the term "submit."  Given the state of affairs, Neidlinger's 
failure to admit to criminal conduct cannot be considered a willful violation of 
a condition of probation.

 
 
[¶14]   We find Neidlinger complied with 
the condition of probation that he submit to a sex offender evaluation.  He met with Mueller, the probation 
officer's chosen sex offender counselor, on two separate occasions.  Mueller testified at the revocation 
hearing that he completed a sex offender evaluation on Neidlinger.  We understand the district court's 
frustration that the evaluation did not go as it envisioned, but the evaluation 
was consistent with the requirements of Neidlinger's probation.  

 
 
CONCLUSION

 
 
[¶15]   We summarily affirm Neidlinger's 
conviction for indecent liberties in Docket No. 06-292 because Neidlinger did 
not present any argument directly challenging that conviction.  For the reasons set out above, we 
reverse the order of the district court revoking Neidlinger's probation and 
re-imposing the original three- to five-year prison sentence and remand for 
further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

 
 
FOOTNOTES

 
 

1The indecent 
liberties statute has since been repealed.  
2007    
Wyo. Sess. Laws, 
393.