Title: ALAN BLANTON V. THE STATE OF WYOMING

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

ALAN BLANTON V. THE STATE OF WYOMING2008 WY 27178 P.3d 410Case Number: S-07-0090Decided: 03/11/2008Modified: 03/12/2008
OCTOBER 
TERM, A.D. 2007

 
 
ALAN 
BLANTON,

 
 
Appellant

(Defendant),

 
 
v.

 
 
THE STATE OF 
WYOMING,

 
 
Appellee

(Plaintiff).

 
 
Appeal 
from the DistrictCourtofLaramieCounty

The 
Honorable Denise Nau, Judge

 
 
Representing 
Appellant:

Robert T. Moxley, Robert T. Moxley, 
P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming.

 
 
Representing 
Appellee:

Bruce A. Salzburg, Attorney General; 
Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant 
Attorney General; James Michael Causey, Assistant Attorney 
General.

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

 
 
BURKE, 
Justice.

 
 

[¶1]         
Alan 
Blanton pleaded guilty to felony property destruction in violation of Wyo. Stat. 
Ann. § 6-3-201.1  As a first time offender, his 
prosecution was deferred pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-13-301,2 and he was placed on 
probation.  The State later 
petitioned to revoke his probation, enter his guilty plea, and impose 
sentence.  The district court never 
held a hearing on the State's petition, but instead, entered an order purporting 
to "transfer" the case to the circuit court judge for "disposition" in the drug 
court.  After a hearing, the circuit court judge revoked Mr. Blanton's 
probation, and accepted his guilty plea.  
Mr. Blanton was placed on probation a second time, with the additional 
requirement that he complete a drug court treatment program.  When he failed to accomplish that, the 
circuit court judge revoked his probation again, and imposed the underlying 
prison sentence.  Mr. Blanton 
appeals the decision revoking his second probation.  

 
 

[¶2]         
Our 
review of the record reveals that the order revoking Mr. Blanton's first 
probation was invalid.  That 
prevents us from reaching the merits of Mr. Blanton's appeal of the 
revocation of his second probation.  
We must remand the case for further proceedings in the district 
court.

 
 

ISSUE

 
 

[¶3]         
The 
dispositive issue is whether the judge who revoked Mr. Blanton's first 
probation had jurisdiction to do so.

 
 
FACTS

 
 

[¶4]         
In 2003, 
Mr. Blanton was charged with felony property destruction.  As a first time offender, he was 
eligible for deferred prosecution pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. 
§ 7-13-301.  Accordingly, the 
district court accepted Mr. Blanton's guilty plea but, in lieu of entering 
the plea and sentencing him, placed him on probation for five years.  The charges against Mr. Blanton 
could have been dismissed if he had successfully completed probation.  However, after he tested positive for 
controlled substances four times during 2005, the State petitioned the district 
court to revoke his probation.  The 
district court did not consider this petition, but instead entered the following 
order:

 
 

THE 
ABOVE-ENTITLED MATTER having 
come before the Court upon request for the matter to be assigned to Drug 
Court,

 
 

IT IS 
HEREBY ORDERED that 
pursuant to W.S. 5-3-112, the above-entitled matter is hereby transferred to 
Circuit Court Judge Denise Nau for disposition in Laramie County Drug 
Court.

 
 

[¶5]         
The 
circuit court judge held a hearing on the petition to revoke Mr. Blanton's 
probation.  The capacity in which 
she was acting is unclear.  The 
transcript of the hearing is captioned "IN THE DISTRICT COURT FIRST JUDICIAL 
DISTRICT," but indicates it is a transcript of proceedings of the "LARAMIE 
COUNTY DRUG COURT," then notes that hearing was held before "THE HONORABLE 
DENISE NAU Circuit Court Judge Presiding."  
The judge revoked Mr. Blanton's probation, accepted and entered his 
guilty plea, and sentenced him to two to four years in prison.  That sentence was suspended, and 
Mr. Blanton was placed back on probation for a period of three years.  One condition of this probation was 
completion of the Laramie County 
Drug Court treatment program.  The written judgment is captioned "IN 
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LARAMIE COUNTY," but the judge's signature is 
designated "DENISE NAU, DRUG COURT JUDGE."

 
 

[¶6]         
Nearly a 
year later, Mr. Blanton was terminated from the Drug Court treatment 
program, and the State again petitioned to revoke his probation.  Although the petition was filed in the 
district court, the proceedings were again held before the circuit court 
judge.  Mr. Blanton's probation 
was revoked, and the underlying prison sentence was imposed.  This order was captioned "IN THE 
DISTRICT COURT FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT," but the signature was designated as 
"DENISE NAU, CIRCUIT JUDGE."  
Mr. Blanton appeals from that order.  He has been released on bond pending the 
outcome of his appeal.

 
 
DISCUSSION

 
 

[¶7]         
Our 
inherent power and duty to address jurisdictional defects on appeal requires us 
to consider jurisdictional questions whether or not they are raised by the 
parties.  Robbins v. South Cheyenne Water & Sewage 
Dist., 792 P.2d 1380, 1384 (Wyo. 1990).  The facts reviewed above demonstrate 
significant confusion regarding the proper jurisdiction of a judge sitting as 
either the circuit court or the drug court.  We therefore begin with a review of the 
respective jurisdictions and functions of the district court, the circuit court, 
and the drug court.  

 
 

District Court

 
 

[¶8]         
Mr. 
Blanton was charged with a felony, a case squarely within the jurisdiction of 
the district court.  District courts 
are our state courts of general jurisdiction.  Urbach v. Urbach, 52 Wyo. 207, 224, 73 P.2d 953, 960 (1937).  They derive their 
judicial powers from the Wyoming Constitution:

 
 
The judicial power of the state 
shall be vested in the senate, sitting as a court of impeachment, in a supreme 
court, district courts, and such subordinate courts as the legislature may, by 
general law, establish and ordain from time to time.

 
 

Wyo. Const. art. 5, § 1.  They have original jurisdiction over all 
cases, excepting only cases placed within the exclusive jurisdiction of another 
court:

 

The district court shall have 
original jurisdiction of all causes both at law and in equity and in all 
criminal cases, of all matters of probate and insolvency and of such special 
cases and proceedings as are not otherwise provided for.  The district court shall also have 
original jurisdiction in all cases and of all proceedings in which jurisdiction 
shall not have been by law vested exclusively in some other 
court.

 
 

Id., art. 5, § 10.  The district court properly exercised 
its jurisdiction when it deferred Mr. Blanton's prosecution and placed him 
on probation.

 
 

[¶9]         
When the 
State petitioned to revoke Mr. Blanton's probation, however, the district court 
declined to hear the matter.  
Instead, it issued this order:

 
 

THE 
ABOVE-ENTITLED MATTER having 
come before the Court upon request for the matter to be assigned to Drug 
Court,

 
 

IT IS 
HEREBY ORDERED that 
pursuant to W.S. 5-3-112, the above-entitled matter is hereby transferred to 
Circuit Court Judge Denise Nau for disposition in Laramie County Drug 
Court.

 
 
For 
reasons explored below, this order was not successful in placing 
Mr. Blanton's case within the jurisdiction of either the circuit court or 
the drug court.

 
 
Circuit 
Court

 
 

[¶10]    
Circuit 
courts are, in the language of the Wyoming Constitution, "such subordinate 
courts as the legislature may, by general law, establish and ordain from time to 
time."  Wyo. Const. art. 5, 
§ 1.  Circuit courts have 
"original jurisdiction in all misdemeanor criminal cases."  Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 5-9-129.  Circuit courts do not have original 
jurisdiction over felony cases.  

 
 

[¶11]    
Although 
the district court's order purported to "transfer" Mr. Blanton's case to the 
circuit court judge, there is no statute, rule, or other provision of law 
providing for such a transfer.  
Arguably, the district court intended to assign the case pursuant to Wyo. 
Stat. Ann. § 5-3-112, which allows a district court judge, with certain 
limitations, to "assign to a circuit court judge any case or proceeding within 
the jurisdiction of the district court."  
However, when a case is assigned under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 5-3-112, 
the case remains pending in the district court.  The circuit court judge acts as a 
substitute district court judge, exercising the jurisdiction and authority of 
the district court.3  The district court's transfer order was 
inconsistent with this procedure because it purported to "transfer" 
Mr. Blanton's case "for disposition in Laramie County Drug Court."  The language of the order is ambiguous, 
and we cannot determine what the district court intended to accomplish by a 
"transfer" of the case for "disposition" by the drug court.  

[¶12]    
More 
importantly, the circuit court judge did not treat the case as one assigned from 
the district court under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 5-3-112.  She proceeded to hear Mr. Blanton's 
case, not as a substitute district court judge, but as a judge of either the 
circuit court or the drug court.  
The circuit court, however, had neither original jurisdiction nor 
properly assigned jurisdiction to revoke Mr. Blanton's probation, to enter 
his guilty plea, to sentence him, or to revoke his probation again and impose 
the underlying prison sentence.

Drug 
Court

 
 

[¶13]    
The 
district court's order purported to transfer Mr. Blanton's case for 
"disposition" in the drug court.  
The term disposition means "the sentencing or other final settlement of a 
criminal case."  Black's Law Dictionary 471 (6th ed. 1990).  The drug court does not have authority 
to make a "disposition" in any case.  
Indeed, calling it a "court" may be a misnomer, because it is not an 
"organ of the government, belonging to the judicial department, whose function 
is the application of the laws to controversies brought before it and the public 
administration of justice."  
Id. at 352.  Drug courts were established to serve 
entirely different purposes:

(a)  The legislature recognizes that a 
critical need exists in this state for criminal justice system programs that 
will break the cycle of drug and alcohol abuse and addiction and the crimes 
committed as a result of drug and alcohol abuse and addiction.  Local drug court programs shall be 
facilitated for the purpose of:

            
(i)  Providing sentencing 
options for the judicial system to dispose of cases stemming from drug use; and 

 
 
            
(ii)  Combining judicial 
supervision, supervised probation, drug testing, treatment, after-care and 
monitoring of drug court participants.

 
 
(b)  The goals of the drug court programs 
funded under this article include the following:

 
 
            
(i)  To reduce alcoholism and 
other drug dependency among offenders;

 
 
            
(ii)  To reduce recidivism 
rates in both drug use and criminal activity;

 
 

(iii)             
To 
reduce the drug related court workload;

 
 

(iv)             
To 
increase the personal, familial and societal accountability of offenders; 
and

 
 

(v)               
To 
promote effective interaction and use of resources among criminal justice 
personnel, state agencies and community agencies.

 
 

Wyo. Stat. 
Ann. § 5-10-101.

 
 

[¶14]    
Accordingly, 
the duties of a drug court judge are quite different from those of a district 
court judge or a circuit court judge:

 
 
Judges 
in drug courts assume a fundamentally different role than the one typically 
played by judges.  Traditionally, 
judges are to be objective decision-makers.  They are to perform their duties 
impartially and diligently.  Judges 
are to decide matters based on the evidence presented to them in court, with all 
parties present and given an opportunity to participate.  That role changes in drug 
court.

 
 
Instead 
of acting as a dispassionate decision-maker, a drug court judge generally takes 
an active part in developing and supervising drug court participants' treatment 
plans.  As part of the plans, drug 
court participants make frequent appearances before the court for reinforcement 
or sanctions.  As a consequence, the 
drug court judge's role is transformed into one of ensuring that the treatment 
plan is both available and followed by the participant.  Accordingly, the judge generally becomes 
much more involved in monitoring the participant's progress, or lack thereof, 
than a judge typically does.  
Whether that is good or bad is an issue unto itself.  There can be no doubt, however, that an 
important change in the judge's role occurs.

 
 

John M. 
Burman, Juvenile Injustice in 
Wyoming, 4 Wyo. L. Rev. 669, 694-95 (2004) (internal 
citations and punctuation omitted).  
As the circuit court judge accurately observed during one hearing in Mr. 
Blanton's case, "the 
drug court program is a sentencing alternative and is no different from 
something such as ACC [Adult Community Corrections] or ISP [Intensive Supervised 
Probation]."  The drug court had the 
authority to, and did, participate in Mr. Blanton's treatment while on 
probation.  It did not have 
jurisdiction to revoke his probation, enter 
his guilty plea, sentence him, then revoke his probation again and impose the 
underlying prison sentence.

 
 

CONCLUSION

 
 

[¶15]    
The 
district court did not rule on the State's petition to revoke Mr. Blanton's 
probation the first time.  The 
circuit court did not have original jurisdiction to hear the felony case, and it 
was not validly assigned jurisdiction by the district court.  The drug court lacked jurisdiction or 
authority to make any "disposition" of Mr. Blanton's case.  Because the circuit court and drug court 
lacked subject matter jurisdiction, "any decision, judgment or other order" made 
by either court "is, as a matter of law, utterly void and of no effect for any 
purpose."  Wooster v. Carbon County Sch. Dist. No. 
1, 2005 WY 47, ¶ 33, 109 P.3d 893, 902 (Wyo. 2005) (Burke, J., 
dissenting); Routh v. State ex rel. 
Workers' Comp. Div., 952 P.2d 1108, 1114 (Wyo. 1998).  The order revoking Mr. Blanton's 
first probation is therefore void.  
Subsequently, the acceptance of his guilty plea, his sentencing, his 
being placed on probation a second time, and the revocation of that second 
probation and the imposition of the underlying prison sentence, are all void and 
of no effect.

 
 

[¶16]    
On 
remand, Mr. Blanton's case takes the same posture it had immediately prior to 
the district court's invalid transfer order.  Mr. Blanton has pleaded 
guilty.  The district court has 
accepted that plea, but pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-13-301, 
deferred the prosecution and placed Mr. Blanton on probation for a period 
of five years.  The State has 
petitioned to revoke Mr. Blanton's probation based on allegations that, on 
four occasions during 2005, he tested positive for controlled substances.  From this point, the district court and 
the parties must determine how to proceed.

 
 

[¶17]    
We 
reverse the district court's order purporting to "transfer" the case for 
"disposition" by the drug court.  
All subsequent orders entered by the circuit judge are void.  We remand to the district court for further 
proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

 
 
FOOTNOTES

 
 

1The 
version of the statute effective when Mr. Blanton was charged, Wyo. Stat. Ann. 
§ 6-3-201 (LexisNexis 2003), read as follows:

(a)  A person is guilty of property 
destruction and defacement if he knowingly defaces, injures or destroys property 
of another without the owner's consent.

(b)  Property destruction and defacement is: 
. . . 

            
(iii)  A felony punishable by 
imprisonment for not more than ten (10) years, a fine of not more than ten 
thousand dollars ($10,000.00), or both, if the cost of restoring injured 
property or the value of the property if destroyed is five hundred dollars 
($500) or more.

2Wyo. Stat. 
Ann. § 7-13-301:

(a)  If a person who has not previously been 
convicted of any felony is charged with or is found guilty of or pleads guilty 
or no contest to . . . any felony except murder, sexual assault in the first or 
second degree, aggravated assault and battery or arson in the first or second 
degree, the court may, with the consent of the defendant and the state and 
without entering a judgment of guilt or conviction, defer further proceedings 
and place the person on probation for a term not to exceed five (5) years upon 
terms and conditions set by the court. . . .

(b)  If the court finds that the person has 
fulfilled the terms of probation and that his rehabilitation has been attained 
to the satisfaction of the court, the court may at the end of five (5) years, or 
at any time after the expiration of one (1) year from the date of the original 
probation, discharge the person and dismiss the proceedings against 
him.

3This is 
the same process as when a district court judge assigns a case to a district 
court judge from another judicial district.  The assigned district court judge may 
"hear, try and determine" the case, but in doing so, exercises "the 
jurisdiction, power and authority possessed by the judge of the district court 
of the district whereto he is called to act as judge."  Wyo. Stat. Ann. 
§ 5-3-106.