Title: CHRISTOPHER DONALD HOWARD v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

CHRISTOPHER DONALD HOWARD v. THE STATE OF WYOMING2011 WY 43Case Number: No. S-10-0132Decided: 03/10/2011  NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in Pacific Reporter Third. Readers are requested to notify the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002, of any typographical or other formal errors so correction may be made before final publication in the permanent volume.
OCTOBER 
TERM, A.D. 2010

 
 

CHRISTOPHER 
DONALD HOWARD,Appellant (Defendant),v.THE STATE OF 
WYOMING,Appellee (Plaintiff).

 
 
 
 
Appeal 
from the District Court of Carbon County

 
 

Representing 
Appellant:

Diane 
M. Lozano, State Public Defender; Tina N. Olson, Appellate Counsel; Eric M. 
Alden, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel.

 
 

Representing 
Appellee:

Bruce 
A. Salzburg, Wyoming Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney 
General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Jenny L. 
Craig, Assistant Attorney General.

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

 
 

HILL, 
Justice.

 
 
[¶1]      Christopher 
Howard appeals the district court's decision revoking his probation.  We affirm.

 
 
ISSUE

 
 
[¶2]      Howard raises one 
issue before this Court:

 
 
The 
court abused its discretion by considering quadruple 
hearsay.

 
 
FACTS

 
 
[¶3]      In April of 2009, 
Christopher Howard was charged with three counts of interference with a peace 
officer (two felonies and one misdemeanor).  Pursuant to a plea agreement, Howard 
pleaded guilty to one of the felony counts, after which a sentence of three to 
seven years was imposed.  That 
sentence was suspended in favor of three years supervised probation.  As a condition of probation, Howard was 
to complete the Volunteers of America (VOA) program at its facility in 
Gillette.

 
 
[¶4]      Less than two 
months after his probation was imposed, on January 29, 2010, the State filed a 
petition to revoke Howard's probation.  
The State alleged that Howard violated the probation terms by being 
terminated from the VOA program because he violated the program rules.  The State alleged the violations were 
twofold: (1) Howard went to an Osco Pharmacy to obtain prescription medication, 
and (2) Howard lied to VOA staff when questioned about going to Osco.  It is a violation of the VOA program 
rules for a participant to pick up his own medication at the 
pharmacy.

 
 
[¶5]      A probation 
revocation hearing was scheduled.  
Prior to the hearing, however, Howard filed a motion to modify his 
sentence, requesting that his probation be modified to require him to complete a 
different treatment program.  At the 
hearing, the parties stipulated to the following:  Howard failed to complete the VOA 
program; Howard had a valid prescription for medication; VOA was aware of 
Howard's prescription; and the prescription was a refill that VOA personnel had 
previously picked up for Howard.  
Howard conceded that he failed to complete the VOA program, to which the 
judge stated during the hearing, "[t]hat takes us from the adjudicatory phase to 
the dispositional phase of this hearing, at which the State must prove that 
[Howard] acted willfully."  The 
parties agreed.

 
 
[¶6]      Two witnesses 
testified during the State's attempt to prove that Howard acted willfully.  A probation agent testified that Howard 
went to Osco, but on cross-examination, the agent testified that she was only 
told this fact by the VOA director, who received the information "fourth 
hand."  Counter to what the 
probation agent stated during her examination, Howard testified that he never 
entered Osco, but instead merely telephoned the store to ensure his insurance 
had paid for the medication so that a staff member from VOA could pick it 
up.  Howard's girlfriend also 
testified that Howard never entered Osco.

 
 
[¶7]      The district 
court nevertheless revoked Howard's probation and re-imposed the underlying 
sentence of three to seven years.  
This appeal followed.

 
 
STANDARD 
OF REVIEW

 

 
[¶8]      We review 
probation revocation proceedings under our abuse of discretion standard: 

 
 

A 
district court's decision to revoke probation and impose a sentence is 
discretionary and will not be disturbed unless the record demonstrates a clear 
abuse of discretion. 
Mapp v. State, 929 P.2d 1222, 1225 (Wyo. 1996). We review the district 
court's decision to determine whether the court could reasonably conclude as it 
did. Id. "Upon review, all that is necessary to uphold a district court's 
decision to revoke probation is evidence that it made a conscientious judgment, 
after hearing the facts, that a condition of probation had been violated."  Sweets v. State, 2003 WY 64, 
¶ 9, 69 P.3d 404, 406 (Wyo. 2003).

 
 

Forbes 
v. State, 
2009 WY 146, ¶ 6, 220 P.3d 510, 512-13 (Wyo. 2009).

 
 
DISCUSSION

 
 
[¶9]      Howard argues on appeal that the district 
court abused its discretion by revoking his probation based on quadruple 
hearsay.  Despite his attorney's 
concession that only the dispositional phase was contested, Howard argues that 
his defense related to both the adjudicative and dispositional phases.  His defense was, ostensibly, that he was 
wrongfully terminated from VOA although he had not violated VOA 
rules.

 
 
[¶10]   As part of his argument, Howard 
weaves in the assertion that his defense was related to both the dispositional 
phase and the adjudicative phase.  
Howard challenges case law that indicates that the adjudicatory phase is 
over once it is established that the probationer did not complete the program in 
question.  Furthermore, Howard 
argues that the "fourth hand" information does not meet due process 
requirements, let alone minimal requirements required in the dispositional 
phase.

 
 
[¶11]   Revocation proceedings are largely 
governed by W.R.Cr.P. 
39 and consist of a two-part process:

 
 
The 
first part, the adjudicatory phase, requires the district court to determine by 
a preponderance of the evidence whether or not a condition of probation has been 
violated. W.R.Cr.P. 
39(a)(5).  This determination must be based on 
verified facts and must be made in accordance with constitutional due process 
requirements and the Wyoming Rules of Evidence.  Mapp v. State, 929 P.2d 1222, 1226 
(Wyo. 1996).  The second part, the 
dispositional phase, is triggered only upon a finding that a condition of 
probation was violated. Id.  During this phase, the district court 
must determine the appropriate consequences of the probation violation.  In making this determination, the 
district court must consider not only the violation, but also the reasons the 
condition was originally imposed and the circumstances surrounding the 
violation.  Id.; Gailey v. 
State, 882 P.2d 888, 891-92 (Wyo. 1994); Minchew v. State, 685 P.2d 30, 32 (Wyo. 1984).

 
 

Foster 
v. State, 
2010 WY 135, ¶ 8, 240 P.3d 200, 202 (Wyo. 2010).  W.R.Cr.P. 
39 states in relevant part:

 
 

(a)          
Revocation. 
-- Proceedings for revocation of probation shall be initiated by a petition for 
revocation filed by the attorney for the state, setting forth the conditions of 
probation which are alleged to have been violated by the probationer and the 
facts establishing the violation.

. 
. . .

(5) 
Hearing. -- At the hearing upon the 
petition for revocation of probation, the state must establish the violation of 
the conditions of probation alleged in the petition by a preponderance of the 
evidence.

(A)  The 
probationer shall have the right to appear in person and by counsel, to confront 
and examine adverse witnesses, and at the dispositional stage to make a 
statement in mitigation of revocation.

(B)  The 
Wyoming Rules of Evidence shall apply to the adjudicative phase of probation 
revocation hearings; however, hearsay that is probative, trustworthy and 
credible may be received into evidence.  
The Wyoming Rules of Evidence do not apply to the dispositional 
stage.

 
 
We 
echoed the purpose of Rule 39 in Edrington v. State, 2008 WY 70, 
¶ 7, 185 P.3d 1264 (Wyo. 2008), and in that context we 
stated:

 
 
[I]n 
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.

. 
. . .

Willfulness 
is determined at the dispositional phase of the 
proceedings.

 
 

Id., 
¶ 7, 185 P.3d  at 1266-67 (citations omitted).  We have said that the term "willful" is 
to be accorded its ordinary and common meaning unless a statute indicates that 
some specialized meaning is intended.

 
 
"Willfully 
means intentionally, knowingly, purposely, voluntarily, consciously, 
deliberately, and without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from carelessly, 
inadvertently, accidentally, negligently, heedlessly, or thoughtlessly."  Whether or not a violation was willful 
is a matter of intent, which is a question of fact.  We will not disturb the trial court's 
determination that Appellant willfully violated his probation unless that 
determination was clearly erroneous.

 
 

Id., 
¶ 9, 
185 P.3d  at 1267 (citations omitted).

 
 
[¶12]   The second portion of the 
proceeding, the dispositional phase, determines whether, in light of a proven 
violation, probation should be revoked.  
Gailey v. State, 882 P.2d 888, 
891-92 (Wyo. 1994).  This portion of 
the proceeding excludes the rules of evidence, and while general due process 
protections continue to attach during this phase, "[t]he sufficiency of the 
evidence to sustain an order revoking probation is a matter within the sound 
discretion of the trial court."  Id., at 892 (citation omitted).  A conscientious judgment after hearing 
the facts is adequate.

 
 
[¶13]   
During the first stage of Howard's probation revocation proceeding, 
the adjudicative phase, Howard admitted to failing to complete a condition of 
his probation.  As documented by the 
stipulation filed with the district court on the date of the probation 
revocation hearing, Howard did not dispute that he failed to successfully 
complete the VOA program.  Actually, 
he admitted to failing the program.

 
 
[¶14]   Following Howard's admission to the 
violation, the district court moved to the dispositional phase of the probation 
revocation proceedings.  During the 
dispositional phase, the district court's only job is to determine the 
"appropriate consequences of the probation violation." Foster, ¶ 8, 240 P.3d  at 202.  Howard's probation agent testified 
during the dispositional phase that she had been informed Howard was terminated 
from the program after he attempted to pick up a prescription from the Osco 
Pharmacy and later lied about the incident, both of which are against program 
rules.  Howard's probation agent 
faced questions on cross-examination regarding the fact that she did not witness 
Howard in Osco and only heard the information third or fourth hand.  Howard's case manager also testified 
regarding the incident that a hearing took place at the VOA, and after it was 
determined that he violated the rules, he was therefore terminated from the 
VOA.

 
 
[¶15]   Despite the fact that the probation 
agent's testimony regarding the rule infraction was based upon hearsay, as she 
did not personally observe it, the district court did not abuse its discretion 
when it used this information to revoke Howard's probation.  Rule 39 (a)(5)(B) is clear that the 
rules of evidence do not apply to the dispositional phase.  Furthermore, this Court has wholly 
accepted the theory that when a district court "turns its attention to the 
second stage of the revocation hearing, hearsay evidence will be useful in 
determining whether or not to revoke probation in light of the prior finding of 
a probation violation."  Mapp v. State, 929 P.2d 1222, 1227 
(citations omitted).  Moreover, 
Howard cannot simply "unring the bell" by ignoring the stipulation he filed 
wherein he specifically admitted that a willful violation 
occurred.

 
 
[¶16]   Based upon the evidence in the 
record and the evidence provided at the dispositional hearing, we affirm the 
district court's conclusion that Howard willfully violated the terms of his 
probation.

 
 
CONCLUSION

 
 
[¶17]   The district court did not abuse 
its discretion in revoking Howard's probation.  Affirmed.