Title: Heggen v. State

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

Heggen v. State1990 WY 107800 P.2d 475Case Number: 89-84Decided: 10/05/1990Supreme Court of Wyoming
THOMAS 
HEGGEN,

 APPELLANT 
(DEFENDANT),

v.

THE STATE OF WYOMING, 

APPELLEE 
(PLAINTIFF).

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

Frank R. 
Chapman, Casper, for appellant.

Joseph B. Meyer, 
Atty. Gen., John W. Renneisen, Deputy Atty. Gen., Karen A. Byrne, Paul S. 
Rehurek, Sr. Asst. Attys. Gen., Cheyenne, for appellee.

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

GOLDEN, Justice.

[¶1]      Thomas Heggen, 
convicted of one count of submitting a false claim with intent to defraud, 
raises issues identical to those raised in Hudson v. State, No. 89-83 [800 P.2d 471] (Wyo. Oct. 5, 1990) and Billis v. State, No. 88-250 [800 P.2d 401] (Wyo. 
Oct. 5, 1990), concerning the constitutionality of W.S. 7-13-301 (June 1987 
Repl.) ("new 301").

[¶2]      We 
affirm.

[¶3]      From March 
through May, 1987, Mr. Heggen, while employed, filed a series of false 
unemployment claims with the Employment Security Commission which netted him 
$1,584 in benefits he was not entitled to receive. Under a plea agreement, in 
return for Mr. Heggen's plea of guilty to one count of submitting a false claim 
with intent to defraud in violation of W.S. 6-5-303(b)(June 1983 Repl.), the 
state agreed not to pursue seven other counts of the same crime, and a charge of 
obtaining property by false pretenses in violation of W.S. 
6-3-407(a)(i)(Cum.Supp. 1984), and to recommend a sentence of a two-year 
probation plus restitution. Being apprised of the plea bargain, the district 
court judge accepted the guilty plea and ordered a presentence investigation 
report. Before the sentencing proceeding, Mr. Heggen filed a motion for "new 
301" treatment. At the sentencing proceeding, Mr. Heggen requested that the 
court make a record concerning whether the court would have handled Mr. Heggen 
under "new 301" but for the state's refusal to consent to that treatment. The 
court declined to say what it would do were the statute different and found that 
"new 301" requires the consent of both parties. The court sentenced Mr. Heggen 
to two years supervised probation. This appeal followed.

[¶4]      Mr. Heggen raises 
issues identical to those raised in Billis and Hudson, namely:

1. Whether W.S. 7-13-301 
(June 1987 Repl.), requiring the state's consent to the court's deferring 
further proceedings and placing a defendant on probation without entry of a 
judgment of conviction, infringes on the judicial department's sentencing power 
in violation of the principle of separation of powers explicitly stated in Wyo. 
Const. art. 2, § 1.

2. Whether 1987 Wyo. 
Sess. Laws, ch. 157, § 3, enacting W.S. 7-13-301 (June 1987 Repl.), was enacted 
in violation of Wyo. Const. art. 3, § 20, which proscribes altering or amending 
a bill during its passage through the legislature so as to change the bill's 
original purpose.

3. Whether 1987 Wyo. 
Sess. Laws, ch. 157, § 3, enacting W.S. 7-13-301 (June 1987 Repl.), was enacted 
in violation of Wyo. Const. art. 3, § 24, which mandates the passage of a bill 
containing only one subject which must be clearly expressed in the bill's 
title.

4. Whether the 
prosecutor's refusal to consent to sentencing under § 7-13-301 was arbitrary and 
an abuse of discretion and therefore violated Wyo. Const. art. 1, §§ 2 and 
7.

Although the 
state asserts that Mr. Heggen has not preserved these issues since he failed 
properly to raise them below, we have chosen to consider them as explained in 
Hudson.

[¶5]      Our decisions in 
Billis and Hudson, in particular, and in Mollman v. State, No. 89-21, 800 P.2d 466 (Wyo. Oct. 5, 1990), and Lowry v. State, No. 88-312, 800 P.2d 401 (Wyo. Oct. 
5, 1990), are dispositive here. See also companion cases, Vigil v. State, No. 
88-310 (Wyo. Oct. 5, 1990); McIver v. State, No. 88-311 (Wyo. Oct. 5, 1990); 
Moon v. State, No. 88-304 (Wyo. Oct. 5, 1990); and Magarahan v. State, No. 89-4 
(Wyo. Oct. 5, 1990) [800 P.2d 401]. Applying those decisions in this case, we 
hold that "new 301" is constitutional in terms of the issues raised here and 
that the prosecutor's refusal to consent to "new 301" treatment in Mr. Heggen's 
case was neither arbitrary nor an abuse of discretion in violation of Wyo. 
Const. art. 1, §§ 2 and 7. Accordingly, we affirm.

URBIGKIT, C.J., filed a 
dissenting opinion in which MACY, J., joins.

MACY, J., filed a dissenting 
opinion in which URBIGKIT, C.J., joins.

URBIGKIT, Chief Justice, 
dissenting, with whom MACY, Justice, joins.

[¶6]      Thomas Heggen, 
age thirty-one and married with two children, is "a stable, law-abiding, and 
productive member of the [Casper] community." In 1987, he and his family were in 
the process of completing an adoption and were then the victims of the Casper, 
Wyoming energy depression and consequent unemployment. Unemployed for one and 
one-half years, he took whatever part-time work he could find until he could 
obtain full time employment.

[¶7]      His improvidence 
in obtaining unreported part-time employment while receiving continued 
unemployment compensation benefits resulted in the filing against him of a 
nine count felony charge.1 The amount involved in the nine 
count felony charge was $1,584 for which full restitution was made before any 
final plea was entered. Faced with the totality of the charge with sentences 
which could, under W.S. 6-5-303(b), total eighteen years and a fine of $18,000, 
plea negotiation was pursued.2 Faced with the severity of this 
multiplied penalty aggregation, Heggen negotiated to plead out for an indicated 
term of probation on the basis of his record as a first offender with no 
significant prior offenses except one speeding charge. Justification existed 
here, if it ever exists in this society, to not incarcerate everyone who commits 
a criminal offense, washed or unwashed, favor or unfavored, since Heggen was a 
person who had obviously made a mistake.

[¶8]      Eight of the nine 
felony counts in accord with the plea bargain agreement were dismissed before 
preliminary hearing in county court and Heggen was then arraigned in the 
district court on the remaining felony charge. At that arraignment, counsel 
advised the trial court that in negotiated disposition, eight of the nine felony 
charges were dismissed with the agreement of a guilty plea to the ninth count 
and that he "should do no more than a probationary period for this for two 
years, should make restitution and no other charges would be filed against him." 
The plea was then made and authenticated:

     THE COURT: Mr. Heggen, 
how do you plead to the charge?

     THE DEFENDANT: 
Guilty.

     THE COURT: If you 
maintain your plea of guilty you are admitting all of the essential facts of the 
charge, the State will not have to prove any case against you and only issue 
will be the sentence. Do you understand that?

     THE DEFENDANT: Yes, 
sir.

     THE COURT: Have you 
been induced or threatened by anyone to enter this plea?

     THE DEFENDANT: No, 
sir.

     THE COURT: Is the plea 
made voluntarily and of your own volition?

     THE DEFENDANT: Yes, 
sir.

     THE COURT: Are you making 
your plea after consultation with your attorney?

     THE DEFENDANT: Yes, 
sir.

     THE COURT: Do you 
fully understand the charge that has been filed against you?

     THE DEFENDANT: Yes, 
sir.

     THE COURT: Do you 
understand that you have the right to plead not guilty?

     THE DEFENDANT: 
Yes.

     THE COURT: Do you 
understand that if you plead not guilty you would be entitled to a speedy trial 
by a judge or an impartial jury of 12 persons, which would have to return a 
unanimous verdict of guilty in order to convict you?

     THE DEFENDANT: 
Yes.

     THE COURT: Do you 
understand at such a trial you would have the right to confront and cross 
examine the witnesses against you, to have compulsory process for witnesses to 
testify in your behalf, to testify yourself, and to present other 
evidence?

     THE DEFENDANT: 
Yes.

     THE COURT: Do you 
understand at such a trial you would be presumed to be innocent and that the 
prosecution would have to establish your guilt by competent evidence beyond a 
reasonable doubt?

     THE DEFENDANT: 
Yes.

     THE COURT: Do you 
understand that you would have the right to remain silent, and your silence 
could not be used against   
you, that is you could not be compelled to incriminate 
yourself?

     THE DEFENDANT: 
Yes.

     THE COURT: Do you 
understand that you would have the right to assistance of counsel at such a 
trial?

     THE DEFENDANT: 
Yes.

     THE COURT: Do you 
understand that if you plead guilty you waive all of these rights, that is you 
no longer have these rights and there will not be a trial?

     THE DEFENDANT: 
Yes.

     THE COURT: Do you 
understand the agreement as to your plea and sentence in this case?

     THE DEFENDANT: 
Yes.

     THE COURT: Do you 
understand the agreement is that you would be placed on probation for a period 
of two years, under the supervision of the Wyoming Department of Probation and 
Parole, your probation being upon the conditions that you not violate any 
federal, state or local laws, that you obey the rules and regulations of the 
Probation Department, that you pay any restitution which might be owing less 
credit for what you have already paid, that you pay $50. to the Clerk of the 
Court's office for the State Victims Compensation Fund?

     THE DEFENDANT: 
Yes.

     THE COURT: Are you 
making this agreement voluntarily?

     THE DEFENDANT: 
Yes.

     THE COURT: The Court 
finds that the plea agreement was made voluntarily by the defendant with full 
understanding of its consequences. The Court defers acceptance of the agreement 
pending further information prior to sentencing. Do you understand that apart 
from this agreement that you could otherwise be sentenced to as much as two 
years in the State Penitentiary and a $2,000. fine on this charge?

     THE DEFENDANT: 
Yes.

     THE COURT: Do you understand that 
if you plead guilty I must ask you questions about the offense?

     THE DEFENDANT: 
Yes.

     [THE COURT:] Do you 
understand that if you answer these questions under oath, on the record and in 
presence of counsel, your answers may later be used [against] you in a 
prosecution for perjury or false statement?

     THE DEFENDANT: 
Yes.

     THE COURT: Do you 
understand that the elements of this offense are that, first, the offense 
occurred on or about the 29th of March, 1987, in Natrona County, Wyoming, 
second, that you did unlawfully and knowingly submit a false claim or voucher, 
and, third, that this was with the intent to defraud?

     THE DEFENDANT: 
Yes.

     THE COURT: On or about 
the 29th of March, 1987, in Natrona County, Wyoming, did you unlawfully and 
knowingly submit   a false 
claim or voucher with the intent to defraud?

     THE DEFENDANT: 
Yes.

     THE COURT: Where did 
this occur?

     THE DEFENDANT: At the 
Employment Security Office, Your Honor.

     THE COURT: What was 
false about your claim?

     THE DEFENDANT: I 
didn't claim all the wages that I earned.

     THE COURT: And as a 
result did you receive unemployment compensation?

     THE DEFENDANT: 
Right.

The trial court 
then concluded the arraignment proceedings by the acceptance of the 
plea:

The Court finds that the 
defendant is alert and not under any influence which would adversely affect his 
ability to understand these proceedings, that he is competent to enter a plea, 
and that the plea is knowingly and voluntarily made, without any improper 
inducement or conditions, free of coercion, and with an understanding of the 
charge and the consequences. The Court further finds the plea was made after 
consultation with competent counsel, and that there is a factual basis for the 
plea. Therefore, the Court accepts the plea of guilty.

[¶9]      Simplistically 
stated under any concept of any American jurisdiction precedent, this was no 
pretrial diversion. This was a conviction with a guilty plea entered and 
accepted.

[¶10]   The issue of the usage of W.S. 
7-13-301 was presented by a written motion in behalf of Heggen. The prosecutor 
then initiated the sentencing hearing by a general recommendation:

     [PROSECUTOR]: The 
State would request the defendant be placed on two years supervised probation 
with the usual conditions, any counseling, I believe restitution has been 
paid.[3]

Responding to 
the recommendation of the prosecutor, which had not in any way approved or 
disapproved of the requested W.S. 7-13-301 vacation of conviction sentencing 
attribute, counsel for Heggen again raised the request for a W.S. 7-13-301 
application and requested a sentence to follow the probation report 
recommendation of six months unsupervised probation.

[¶11]   On the record, the prosecutor never 
actually vetoed the requested W.S. 7-13-301 sentencing arrangement. Somehow by 
osmosis, the litigants apparently recognized that the prosecutorial veto was 
exercised without either express statement or pro forma justification. 
See Billis v. State, 800 P.2d 401 (Wyo. 1990) (Nos. 88-250, 304, 310, 311, 312 
and 89-4, 10/5/90), Urbigkit, Chief Justice, dissenting.4 The sentence itself of two years 
supervised probation fits equally and appropriately within either W.S. 7-13-301 
or 7-13-302, except that the opportunity for felony conviction extinguishment 
was obviously and intentionally not included. The trial court said:

My position on that is 
that the statute does require the consent of both parties, and that I cannot 
sentence someone pursuant to that section without the consent of both sides, and 
also that courts are not supposed to make unnecessary rulings. So I don't think 
it would be proper to say what I would do if the statute were 
different.

Consequently, 
the sentencing was made under W.S. 7-13-302 (a sentence which would not result 
in post-probation felony conviction extinguishment).

[¶12]   The only result of all of this is 
that Heggen, by exercise of even an unstated veto in this case by the 
prosecutor, cannot hereafter vote, hold most public offices, own a firearm or 
otherwise pursue the normal activities accorded citizenship in a democratic 
society. Arbitrary and unprincipled control over the judicial functioning of 
sentences, here contributed by the prosecution, consequently forecloses 
application of Wyo. Const. art. 1, § 15, the requirement of a penal code framed 
on the humane principles of reformation and prevention.

[¶13]   I find no room in the justice 
delivery system for unthinking, unjustified or unprincipled trial advocate 
control over judicial discretion for sentencing. Not one case cited by the 
litigants or the majority justifies this incursion on judicial process. In the 
first place, the volume of cases cited in support, see Billis, 800 P.2d 401 
(Nos. 88-250, 304, 310, 311, 312 and 89-4, 10/5/90), Urbigkit, Chief Justice, 
dissenting, relate to an incident in the course of criminal prosecution called 
diversion which, by no applicable definition, applies here. Secondly, even to 
diversion, unprincipled, arbitrary and unjustified discretion is categorically 
rejected on a due process, equal protection inhibition. See Shade v. Com. of 
Pennsylvania, Dept. of Transp., 394 F. Supp. 1237, 1240 (M.D.Pa. 1975); People, 
By and Through Vanmeveren v. District Court In and For Larimer County, 186 Colo. 
335, 527 P.2d 50 (1974); Cleveland v. State, 417 So. 2d 653, 654 (Fla. 1982); 
State v. Cleveland, 390 So. 2d 364 (Fla.App. 1980); State v. Greenlee, 228 Kan. 
712, 620 P.2d 1132 (1980); State v. Collins, 180 N.J. Super. 190, 434 A.2d 628 
(1981), aff'd 90 N.J. 449, 448 A.2d 977 (1982); State v. Dalglish, 86 N.J. 503, 
432 A.2d 74 (1981); State v. Leonardis, 73 N.J. 360, 375 A.2d 607 (1977) 
(Leonardis II); State v. Leonardis, 71 N.J. 85, 363 A.2d 321 (1976), reh'g 73 
N.J. 360, 375 A.2d 607 (1977) (Leonardis I); City of Cleveland v. Mosquito, 10 
Ohio App.3d 239, 461 N.E.2d 924 (1983); State v. Graves, 58 Or. App. 286, 648 P.2d 866 (1982); State ex rel. Harmon v. Blanding, 292 Or. 752, 644 P.2d 1082 
(1982); State ex rel. Anderson v. Haas, 43 Or. App. 169, 602 P.2d 346 (1979); 
Com. v. Ebert, 369 Pa. Super. 318, 535 A.2d 178 (1987); Com. v. Lutz, 508 Pa. 
297, 495 A.2d 928 (1985); Com. v. Kindness, 247 Pa. Super. 99, 371 A.2d 1346, 
1347 (1977); Pace v. State, 566 S.W.2d 861 (Tenn. 1978); and Note, Pretrial 
Diversion from the Criminal Process, 83 Yale L.J. 827, 852-54 (1974). See also 
the cases which, although categorized as contra, are generally consistent since 
either dealing with post plea non-diversion status as a separation of powers 
issue or the due process, equal protection, constitutional constituents of 
exercised discretion, State v. Prentiss, 163 Ariz. 81, 786 P.2d 932 (1989); 
State v. Jones, 142 Ariz. 302, 304, 689 P.2d 561, 563 (1984); People v. Superior 
Court of San Mateo County, 11 Cal. 3d 59, 113 Cal. Rptr. 21, 520 P.2d 405 (1974); 
People v. Navarro, 7 Cal. 3d 248, 102 Cal. Rptr. 137, 497 P.2d 481 (1972); 
Esteybar v. Municipal Court for Long Beach Judicial Dist. of Los Angeles County, 
5 Cal. 3d 119, 95 Cal. Rptr. 524, 485 P.2d 1140 (1971); People v. Tenorio, 3 Cal. 3d 89, 89 Cal. Rptr. 249, 473 P.2d 993 (1970); People v. Caldwell, 118 Ill. 
App.3d 1027, 74 Ill.Dec. 464, 455 N.E.2d 893 (1983); People v. Teschner, 81 Ill. 2d 187, 40 Ill.Dec. 818, 821, 407 N.E.2d 49, 52 (1980); State v. LeCompte, 
406 So. 2d 1300 (La. 1981); State v. Olson, 325 N.W.2d 13 (Minn. 1982); State ex 
rel. Light v. Sheffield, 768 S.W.2d 590, 592 (Mo. App. 1989); and State v. 
Anderson, 645 S.W.2d 251 (Tenn.Cr.App. 1982).

[¶14]   Even if we choose to misapply 
diversion case law to sentencing processes, the majority still fails to provide 
authority justifying the result in this case.5 The case law would follow a 
principle recently restated:

     It was, accordingly, 
incumbent upon the trial court to determine first whether there were any 
"grounds for denial" * * *.

State v. King, 
156 N.J. Super. 42, 383 A.2d 443, 445 (1978). The case then reflects that "[t]he 
record here is barren of any such findings or expression of reasons." Id. 383 A.2d  at 445.

[¶15]   The writers of the Wyoming 
Constitution spoke to a prohibition of this character of "discretion": 
"Absolute, arbitrary power over the lives, liberty and property of freemen 
exists nowhere in a republic, not even in the largest majority." Wyo. Const. 
art. 1, § 7.

[¶16]   Consequently, I again dissent as I 
did in Billis, 800 P.2d 401 (Nos. 88-250, 304, 310, 311, 312 and 89-4, 10/5/90) 
and will continue hereafter for each appeal under the responsibilities impressed 
on this office to support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States 
and the Constitution of this state. Wyo. Const. art. 6, § 20. There is a firmly 
founded reason in the history of Anglo American jurisprudence now existent for 
at least 500 years (half of a millennium), why the power of the prosecutor is 
differentiated from the fact finding and discretional responsibility of the 
impartial judge and jury. For this case, as a clear factual illustration, the 
historical Wyoming sentencing structure utilized since 1907 should be continued 
in its eighty year prospective of the differentiated functions between 
prosecutor and trial judge.

MACY, Justice, dissenting, 
with whom URBIGKIT, Chief Justice, joins.

[¶17]   I dissent. I am convinced that "new 
301" violates the separation of powers doctrine for the reasons articulated in 
my dissent to Billis v. State, 800 P.2d 401 (Wyo. Nos. 88-250, 88-304, 88-310, 
88-311, 88-312 and 89-4 October 5, 1990).

 FOOTNOTES

1 The statutory penalty 
for unemployment compensation benefit receipt fraud is found in W.S. 27-3-704 
and is a misdemeanor. To prosecute Heggen, the prosecuting attorney went to the 
general false claims statute, W.S. 6-5-303(b), to authenticate a nine felony 
charge. In result, fraud by the employer is only a modest misdemeanor, but as 
here the employee is subjected to a multiple charge felony. There is a serious 
question of the entire validity of the charge under any felony statute, but that 
is not the issue presented here since the question of the specific applied 
statute controlling over a general statute was neither raised nor 
briefed.

2 The prosecutorial 
perjury contestably involved in Cooney v. Park County, 792 P.2d 1287 (Wyo. 1990) 
involving conduct by the prosecutor is a maximum five year, $5,000 felony 
criminal offense for which, of course, no charge was ever filed.

3 The probation officer 
had evaluated and recommended:

The Defendant's prior 
offense record, or lack thereof, and his employment history are fairly 
indicative that he is a stable, law-abiding, and productive member of the 
community. The fact the Defendant paid restitution in full, in less than one 
month and without being ordered to, demonstrate[s] a certain amount of remorse 
for his wrongdoing and a desire to correct it.

These things taken into 
consideration, it is this Agent's opinion that the ultimate goal of probation 
has already been achieved; and no further benefit, to either the community or 
the individual, can be obtained by placing Mr. Heggen on supervised probation 
for any length of time.

* * * * * *

It is respectfully 
recommended, therefore, that the Defendant, Mr. Thomas Heggen, be placed on 
unsupervised probation for a period of time not in excess of six 
months.

4 As one can best discern 
from this record, the prosecutorial veto, albeit unstated, was accomplished by 
nonconcurrence and without express statement in the record. This becomes the 
absolute antithesis of exercised rational discretion and is the epitome of 
arbitrary absurdity evidencing appearances of juvenile and unprincipled 
conduct.

5 Diversion prosecutorial 
discretion veto usage is cogently delineated in State v. Kirchdoerffer, 156 N.J. 
Super. 172, 383 A.2d 732, 734 (1978):

[T]he * * * judge should 
determine whether in the totality of the circumstances presented in this case: 
(1) the prosecutor's refusal to consent, based solely on the nature of the 
offense charged, was appropriate; and (2) the prosecutor's refusal was based on 
a patent and gross abuse of his discretion.

See 
also Leonardis, 375 A.2d 607. Kirchdoerffer was reversed and remanded for 
"further consideration, findings and determination" since the record presented 
no justification for the prosecutorial veto even within the diversion status of 
the case. Kirchdoerffer, 383 A.2d  at 734.