IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING

2021 WY 114

OCTOBER TERM, A.D. 2021

 October 14, 2021

DEWAYNE RAY FARTHING,

Petitioner,

v.

THE STATE OF WYOMING,

Respondent.

S-21-0052

Petition for Writ of Certiorari

District Court of Natrona County

The Honorable Catherine E. Wilking, Judge

Representing Petitioner:

Diane Lozano, State Public Defender; Kirk A. Morgan, Chief Appellate Counsel;

David E. Westling, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel.

Representing Appellee:

Bridget L. Hill, Wyoming Attorney General; Jenny L. Craig, Deputy Attorney 

General; Joshua C. Eames, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Kristen R. Jones, 

Assistant Attorney General.

Before FOX, C.J., and DAVIS, KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, and GRAY, JJ.

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 that correction may be made before 

final publication in the permanent volume.
1

BOOMGAARDEN, Justice.

[¶1] Dewayne Ray Farthing contends the district court abused its discretion when it 

revoked his probation. We affirm.

FACTS

[¶2] In July 2018, the State charged Mr. Farthing with conspiracy to deliver 

methamphetamine. After accepting his guilty plea, the district court in Casper, Wyoming 

sentenced him to three to four years imprisonment but suspended his sentence on the 

condition that he successfully complete three years of supervised probation. The court 

imposed various probation terms and conditions in his judgment and sentence, including: 

“1. That [Mr. Farthing] be under the direct supervision of the Wyoming Department of 

Corrections, Probation and Parole, and shall obey that Department’s rules and regulations.” 

[¶3] The State petitioned to revoke Mr. Farthing’s probation in February 2020.

1

 In two 

separate allegations, the State claimed that Mr. Farthing had failed to report to his probation 

officer as directed since November 15, 20192 and failed to comply with a sanction his 

probation officer imposed in October 2019 that increased his reporting requirements for 

the next 60 days.

3

 It asserted that both failures violated the condition in his judgment and 

sentence that required him to be under the supervision of the Department of Corrections, 

and to obey its rules and regulations. 

[¶4] Mr. Farthing’s probation officer, Agent Andrew Gitlitz, testified at the March 2020

revocation hearing. Agent Gitlitz took over Mr. Farthing’s case in June 2019, at which 

time Mr. Farthing was required to report at least once a month. At an October 10 meeting,

however, due to missed report dates, Agent Gitlitz imposed a sanction that required Mr. 

Farthing to report in person every other week for the next 60 days. He explained to Mr. 

Farthing that if he needed to miss a report, he was to contact Agent Gitlitz to reschedule. 

After excusing Mr. Farthing from his October 25 reporting, Agent Gitlitz tried to arrange 

a home visit with Mr. Farthing in early November but could not reach him. 

[¶5] Agent Gitlitz testified that he heard nothing from Mr. Farthing until November 25, 

when he received a text message saying “I got to take my son somewhere safe right now 

his mom is being crazy and kicked us both out in the cold. I can[’]t let him suffer. I[’]ll 

1 The State also petitioned to revoke Mr. Farthing’s probation in a separate burglary case based on the same 

alleged violations. Mr. Farthing admitted the probation violationsin that case, after which the court revoked 

his probation and imposed a prison sentence. Mr. Farthing timely appealed that decision, and we affirmed. 

See Farthing v. State, 2020 WY 112, 469 P.3d 1214 (Wyo. 2020).

2 Agent Gitlitz testified at the revocation hearing that this should have been November 25, 2019—the day 

he last heard from Mr. Farthing. 

3 The State also alleged that Mr. Farthing violated his probation when he got arrested for interference with 

a peace officer in January 2020. The State later withdrew that allegation. 
2

let you know when I find out more.” On November 27, Agent Gitlitz replied via a text 

message that said “[y]ou need to update me[.]” Agent Gitlitz again heard nothing from 

Mr. Farthing until January 2020. On January 14, Mr. Farthing sent a text message that said 

“[l]ife has been very chaotic this last month. Lots of change. I’ll be back in town on 

Monday. To drop my son off. Will I be a[b]le to see you[?]” Agent Gitlitz did not know 

whether Mr. Farthing attempted to report that following Monday because it was a holiday 

and the probation office was closed. After that, Agent Gitlitz testified, he was unable to 

reply to Mr. Farthing and thought that maybe Mr. Farthing’s phone was shut off. 

[¶6] Mr. Farthing testified that he remembered Agent Gitlitz sanctioning him with 

increased reporting requirements in October 2019. Then he explained that when hisfiancée 

kicked him out in November 2019, he and his son were homeless with no other option than 

to go stay with his sister in Rock Springs, Wyoming. The rest of Mr. Farthing’s testimony 

was vague, and contradictory at times. He first testified that he did not contact Agent 

Gitlitz again until he brought his son back to Casper, and he could not remember when that 

was. He then said that he tried to call when he got to Rock Springs, but he could not 

remember whether he called the probation office or Agent Gitlitz directly, and he could not 

remember how many times he tried to call, but he believed he left a voice message. 

[¶7] According to Mr. Farthing, he was in Rock Springs for “maybe two weeks” before 

coming back to Casper in early December so his son could see his mom, then he went back 

to Rock Springs “for a short time” before returning to Casper and getting an apartment—

he said he could not recall the dates for these events. He also said he thought he last 

reported to Agent Gitlitz in November 2019, he was arrested on December 23 and/or 

January 28,

4 and he believed he tried to call Agent Gitlitz sometime in December and texted 

him sometime in December or January. 

[¶8] At the close of the hearing, the court found that the State proved Mr. Farthing’s 

probation violations by a preponderance of the evidence and further found that those

violations were willful. The court revoked Mr. Farthing’s probation and sentenced him to 

two and a half to three and a half years imprisonment with credit for time served.

[¶9] This matter is before us on a petition for writ of certiorari, which we granted after 

Mr. Farthing’s counsel failed to file a timely appeal. See Foote v. State, 751 P.2d 884 

(Wyo. 1988) (holding that certiorari is the appropriate remedy when counsel fails to file a 

timely appeal as requested). 

4 The record supports that Mr. Farthing was arrested for interference with a peace officer on January 28, 

2020. It is not apparent from the record whether he was arrested in December 2019. 
3

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[¶10] We review a district court’s probation revocation decision for an abuse of discretion. 

Ramos v. State, 2021 WY 22, ¶ 6, 479 P.3d 777, 779 (Wyo. 2021) (citing Sena v. State, 

2019 WY 111, ¶ 25, 451 P.3d 1143, 1149 (Wyo. 2019)). Though the court “must afford 

the defendant due process and base decisions on justifiable facts, ‘all that is necessary to 

uphold [the court’s] decision to revoke probation is evidence that it made a conscientious 

judgment, after hearing the facts, that the defendant willfully violated a condition of his 

probation.’” Id. (quoting Stroble v. State, 2020 WY 158, ¶ 8, 478 P.3d 649, 651 (Wyo. 

2020)). “We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the district court’s 

determination and uphold its factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous ‘[b]ecause 

the trial court heard and weighed the evidence, assessed witness credibility, and made the 

necessary inferences and deductions from the evidence.’” Id. (quoting Stroble, ¶ 8, 478 

P.3d at 651).

DISCUSSION

[¶11]

Courts employ a two-part process for probation revocation. 

The first part is the adjudicatory phase where the district court 

determines if the probationer violated the terms of his 

probation. The State is required to prove the probation 

violation by a preponderance of the evidence. If the district 

court finds the State met its burden, it moves to the 

dispositional phase in which it determines the appropriate 

punishment.

Id. ¶ 7, 479 P.3d at 779 (internal citations omitted). If the basis for the revocation is a 

violation of probation terms “not involving the payment of money, the violation must either 

be willful or threaten the safety of society.” Miller v. State, 2015 WY 72, ¶ 8, 350 P.3d 

742, 745 (Wyo. 2015) (quoting Sinning v. State, 2007 WY 193, ¶ 10, 172 P.3d 388, 390 

(Wyo. 2007)). “A court may infer from the evidence presented that a probation violation 

was willful.” Sena, ¶ 27, 451 P.3d at 1149 (citation omitted).

[¶12] Mr. Farthing contends the court erred by finding that he willfully violated his 

probation when he failed to report to Agent Gitlitz as required. He asserts his violations

were not willful, but rather that he was unable to report due to factors beyond his control. 

Whether Mr. Farthing’s violations were willful is a question of fact we review for clear 

error. See Miller, ¶ 11, 350 P.3d at 745; Ramos, ¶ 6, 479 P.3d at 779. Viewing the evidence 

in the light most favorable to the district court’s determination, we conclude the court’s 

finding that Mr. Farthing’s violations were willful was not clearly erroneous.
4

[¶13] Willful means “intentionally, knowingly, purposely, voluntarily, consciously, 

deliberately, and without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from carelessly, inadvertently, 

accidentally, negligently, heedlessly or thoughtlessly.” Ramos, ¶ 8, 479 P.3d at 779 

(quoting Brumme v. State, 2018 WY 115, ¶ 23, 428 P.3d 436, 444 (Wyo. 2018)). Agent 

Gitlitz testified that he explained the increased reporting sanction to Mr. Farthing at their

October 10, 2019. Mr. Farthing testified that he recalled being sanctioned at that meeting. 

Agent Gitlitz testified that after that meeting Mr. Farthing failed to report for the next three 

months. The only contact Agent Gitlitz received from Mr. Farthing were two text 

messages, almost two months apart, and neither provided a sufficient justification for Mr. 

Farthing’s prolonged failure to report. 

[¶14] Mr. Farthing argues that because he was homeless and had to travel to Rock Springs, 

Wyoming for basic housing for himself and his son, the district court erred when it found 

he willfully violated his probation. He fails, however, to explain why that situation kept 

him from reporting until mid-January. He testified that he only went to Rock Springs for 

two weeks before returning to Casper in early December, and that he went back and forth 

between the two locations before finally moving back to Casper. Though Mr. Farthing

vaguely asserted that he attempted to contact Agent Gitlitz during that time, the court

weighed those assertions against Agent Gitlitz’s testimony and the text message evidence.

To the extent Mr. Farthing’s testimony conflicted with Agent Gitlitz’s, the court plainly 

found Agent Gitlitz’s testimony more credible. The court’s willfulness finding was not 

clearly erroneous.

[¶15] Mr. Farthing also argues that his probation violations could not be found to be 

willful because it was unclear whether he understood his reporting requirements and there 

were no written instructions for his reporting requirements. He points to Agent Gitlitz’s 

testimony that he could not be positive that Mr. Farthing understood that the October 2019

sanction required “face-to-face meeting[s.]” Yet Mr. Farthing testified that he recalled 

Agent Gitlitz explaining the sanction to him, and he understood he needed to “come in” to 

report. He also testified that he knew he could always reach out to Agent Gitlitz if he could 

not make a report date and needed to reschedule. Lastly, we are unaware of any authority,

and Mr. Farthing has provided none, to suggest that probation reporting requirements must 

be in writing in order for the court to conclude a violation was willful. 

[¶16] Affirmed.