Title: Blouir v. State

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

Blouir v. State1997 WY 149950 P.2d 53Case Number: 97-165Decided: 12/19/1997Supreme Court of Wyoming

LOUIS BLOUIR, JR.,  

Appellant (Defendant), 

 

v. 

 

The STATE of WYOMING,  

Appellee(Plaintiff).

 

Representing 
Appellant: 

Louis 
Blouir, Jr., Pro Se.

 Representing 
Appellee: 

William U. 
Hill, Attorney General; Paul S. Rehurek, Deputy Attorney General; and D. Michael 
Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General.

 

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

MACY, Justice. 

[¶1]      This case comes 
before us upon an order granting a writ of review. We agreed to review the 
district court's order which denied Appellant Louis Blouir, Jr.'s request to be 
awarded a credit for the time which he spent in the Surveillance and Treatment 
of Offenders Program (S.T.O.P.).

 

[¶2]      We 
affirm.

 

ISSUES

 

[¶3]      Blouir submits 
two issues for our analysis:

 

Issue I

Whether the Court erred in refusing to credit the 
period of confinement on Surveillance [and] Treatment [of] Offenders Program 
(STOP) off of the imposed sentence.

 

Issue II

Whether the Court should recognize the Surveillance 
[and] Treatment [of] Offenders Program as a sentence of 
confinement.

 

FACTS

 

[¶4]      After Blouir 
pleaded guilty to the charge of delivering marihuana, the district court 
sentenced him to serve a term of not less than four years nor more than six 
years in the state penitentiary. The district court suspended the sentence and 
placed Blouir on probation for three years with one of the probation conditions 
being that he spend the first year in the S.T.O.P., which he 
accomplished.

 

[¶5]      The district 
attorney subsequently filed a petition to revoke Blouir's probation, alleging 
that Blouir had violated other conditions of his probation. Blouir admitted that 
he had violated those conditions, and the district court revoked his probation 
and reinstated his original sentence. The judge allowed 101 days to be credited 
against the minimum and maximum sentences for the time which Blouir served in 
the Laramie County Detention Facility and in the Wyoming State 
Hospital.

 

[¶6]      Blouir filed 
various motions, seeking to receive credit for the year that he spent in the 
S.T.O.P. The district court denied these motions. In a final attempt to receive 
credit for the year that he spent in the S.T.O.P., Blouir filed another motion 
which the district court again denied. Blouir filed a Motion for Redress, 
Acceptance of Notice to Appeal with this Court, asking us to review the district 
court's order. We considered his motion to be a petition for a writ of review 
and issued an order granting a writ of review.

 

STANDARD 
OF REVIEW

 

[¶7]      In the absence of 
a clear abuse of discretion, we will not reverse a sentence which falls within 
the minimum and maximum terms set by the legislature. Smith v. State, 932 P.2d 1281, 1282 (Wyo. 1997). "When a sentencing court erroneously fails to award a 
presentence confinement credit, a later denial of a motion to correct the 
illegal sentence constitutes an abuse of discretion." Eustice v. State, 871 P.2d 682, 684 
(Wyo. 1994).

 

DISCUSSION

 

[¶8]      Blouir contends 
that participation in the S.T.O.P. constitutes official detention and that, 
therefore, the district court erred by refusing to give him a credit against his 
reinstated prison sentence for the time that he was in the S.T.O.P. The State 
replies that a presentence confinement credit for the time spent on supervised 
probation is not appropriate unless a charge of escape from official detention 
will lie with respect to one of the probation conditions. 

 

[¶9]      WYO. STAT. § 
6-5-201(a)(ii) (1997) defines official detention as being 
an

 

arrest, detention in a facility for custody of 
persons under charge or conviction of crime or alleged or found to be 
delinquent, detention for extradition or deportation, or detention in any manner 
and in any place for law enforcement purposes. "Official detention" does not 
include supervision on probation or parole or constraint incidental to release 
on bail[.]

 

The definition explicitly 
omits "supervision on probation." Blouir was on probation, and his participation 
in the S.T.O.P. was one of the conditions of his probation. He was not 
incarcerated nor was he in custody during the time that he was in the S.T.O.P. 
Blouir, therefore, was not subject to official detention. See White v. State, 934 P.2d 745, 747 
(Wyo. 1997).

 

[¶10]   We addressed this precise issue in 
a case which had similar facts. Kupec v. 
State, 835 P.2d 359 (Wyo. 1992). In Kupec, we held that, "when a defendant, 
as a probation condition, is placed in an environment from which a charge of 
escape would lie, he would be entitled to credit against his sentence for the 
time he spent in that environment if his probation were subsequently revoked." 
835 P.2d  at 363.

 

[¶11]   In this case, Blouir would not have 
faced escape charges if he had failed to remain in the S.T.O.P. because his 
participation in the S.T.O.P. was a condition of his probation and he was not 
subject to official detention. Blouir consequently is not entitled to be awarded 
a presentence confinement credit for the time that he was in the 
S.T.O.P.

 

[¶12]   Affirmed.