Case Title: Cavender v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 92-213

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1993-10-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
Cavender v. State1993 WY 129860 P.2d 1162Case Number: 92-213Decided: 10/08/1993Supreme Court of Wyoming
Brian 
CAVENDER, 

Appellant 
(Defendant),

v.

STATE 
of Wyoming, 

Appellee 
(Plaintiff).

Appeal 
from the District Court, Natrona County, Dan Spangler, 
J.

State 
Public Defender Program, Leonard D. Munker, State Public Defender, Deborah 
Cornia, Appellate Counsel, Cheyenne, for appellant.

Joseph 
B. Meyer, Atty. Gen., Sylvia L. Hackl, Deputy Atty. Gen., Barbara L. Boyer, Sr. 
Asst. Atty. Gen., Mary Beth Wolff, Asst. Atty. Gen., Cheyenne, for 
appellee. 

Before 
MACY, C.J., and THOMAS, CARDINE, GOLDEN and TAYLOR, 
JJ.

GOLDEN, 
Justice.

[¶1]      On writ of 
certiorari, appellant Brian Cavender seeks reversal of the trial court's 
evidentiary hearing ruling that he voluntarily entered his guilty plea with 
effective assistance of counsel. Appellant asserts the ruling is an abuse of 
discretion by the trial court.

[¶2]      We 
affirm.

ISSUES

[¶3]      Appellant states 
the issues as:

1) 
Whether the trial court erred when it ruled that the appellant's plea of guilty 
to the charge of burglary was made knowingly and 
voluntarily?

2) 
Whether appellant was denied effective assistance of 
counsel?

[¶4]      The state 
expresses the issue as:

1) 
Whether appellant was effectively represented by counsel at the time he 
knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered his guilty 
plea?

FACTS

[¶5]      On September 5, 
1991, appellant pleaded guilty to a burglary he committed while on parole for 
another crime. Before accepting appellant's plea, the district court questioned 
him in detail about his understanding of the plea agreement and his basis for 
entry of the guilty plea. Appellant admitted to breaking a window of a liquor 
store to steal liquor. A janitor saw him inside the store; he chased appellant, 
caught him, and held him until the police arrived.

[¶6]      The court then 
questioned appellant about his understanding of the plea agreement. Appellant 
agreed the terms of the agreement were a two to four year sentence in the state 
penitentiary with credit for time served. He told the court there were no other 
promises made to him apart from those included in the plea agreement. Satisfied 
that appellant was properly entering the guilty plea, the court then imposed a 
two to four year sentence at the state penitentiary for the burglary. There was 
no mention in the record by appellant, his counsel, or the court as to whether 
the sentence for the burglary would run concurrently or consecutively to any 
sentence which would be reinstated by parole revocation.

[¶7]      Upon 
incarceration, appellant's parole was revoked. The sentences began to run 
consecutively. Appellant then began to write to his defense attorney protesting 
the consecutive sentences. These letters stated it was his understanding of the 
plea agreement that he should receive concurrent sentences and not consecutive 
sentences.

[¶8]      To obtain 
clarification from the court, appellant's defense counsel then requested and 
received a hearing for modification of the sentence. The district court ruled 
there was no condition in the plea agreement for the burglary sentence to run 
concurrently with any sentence resulting from parole 
revocation.

[¶9]      Appellant did not 
appeal this decision. He later petitioned this court by writ of certiorari for 
an evidentiary hearing to determine if the plea agreement was complete. The 
petition was denied for not complying with the required documentation as 
required by Leach v. State, 836 P.2d 336, 340 (Wyo. 1992).

[¶10]   A second petition for a writ of 
certiorari was partially granted and an evidentiary hearing held to determine 
whether there had been effective assistance of counsel in the proceedings before 
the district court. After hearing testimony from both appellant and counsel, the 
district court ruled there was not an agreement for concurrent sentences in this 
case and there had been effective assistance of counsel. This appeal 
followed.

DISCUSSION

[¶11]   We restrict our review of a trial 
court's ruling in an evidentiary hearing to whether there was an abuse of 
discretion. That ruling will not be disturbed unless there was an abuse of 
discretion. Rude v. State, 851 P.2d 20, 22-23 (Wyo. 1993). 

[¶12]   We define judicial discretion as "a 
composite of many things, among which are conclusions drawn from objective 
criteria; it means a sound judgment exercised with regard to what is right under 
the circumstances and without doing so arbitrarily and capriciously." Martin v. 
State, 720 P.2d 894, 897 (Wyo. 1986). See also, Rude, 851 P.2d  at 23. The 
ultimate issue is whether or not the court could reasonably conclude as it did. 
Id.

[¶13]   The trial court had to make the 
initial determination that concurrent sentences were a condition of the plea 
agreement before addressing the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel. The 
record indicates the district court heard testimony from appellant and from his 
defense counsel.

[¶14]   We have held that "[i]t is the 
district court - as the trier of fact - who must assess the credibility of 
witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony in deciding whether there 
existed a valid plea agreement and its terms and conditions." Clouse v. State, 
809 P.2d 791, 794 (Wyo. 1991). This standard also applies in deciding whether a 
plea agreement condition existed.

[¶15]   The standard of review for 
questions of fact is:

We 
assume that evidence in favor of the successful party is true, disregarding 
entirely the evidence of the unsuccessful party in conflict therewith, and give 
to the evidence of the successful party every favorable inference which may be 
reasonably and fairly drawn from it. "So long as there exists substantial 
evidence supporting the trier of fact's determination, we will not second guess 
it on appeal."

Clouse, 
809 P.2d  at 794 (quoting Richardson v. Green, 644 P.2d 778, 779 (Wyo. 
1982)).

[¶16]   Assuming the evidence in favor of 
the prevailing party is true and not considering conflicting testimony, there 
was sufficient evidence for the district court to find that a concurrent 
sentence arrangement was not a condition of appellant's agreement to plead 
guilty.

[¶17]   Defense counsel's testimony 
sufficiently established that a concurrent sentence arrangement was not a 
condition of the plea agreement and she had never discussed such a condition 
with appellant or the prosecution. It was quite clear that the terms were two to 
four years in the state penitentiary and credit for time 
served.

[¶18]   When asked if defense counsel had 
requested the modification hearing because appellant's claim of the promised 
condition was true, defense counsel denied that this was her reason. She 
testified she requested the modification hearing to either modify the sentence 
or clarify the plea agreement. Modification was a possibility since appellant's 
sentence was silent as to whether his new sentence should run concurrently or 
consecutively to the now reinstated sentence. She wanted clarification since she 
did not recall that concurrent sentences were a part of the plea agreement and 
she had the opportunity to ask the same court and 
prosecution.

[¶19]   The district court had sufficient 
evidence to find that the concurrent sentence condition was not a part of the 
plea agreement. Appellant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was based 
on whether defense counsel had "promised" concurrency as he alleged. The court 
found that defense counsel had made no such promise. Therefore, she had not been 
"ineffective."

[¶20]   The district court did not abuse 
its discretion in ruling that because the plea agreement was complete and 
voluntarily entered into by appellant there was effective assistance of 
counsel.

[¶21]   Affirmed.