Opinion ID: 2514668
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Probation Revocation/Due Process

Text: [¶ 9] Reece's first issue on appeal is that his due process rights were violated because the terms of his probation failed to specify the required, and the prohibited, conduct. The State responds that the terms of probation were specific enough and that due process was not violated. [¶ 10] Revocation of probation is largely governed by court rule, W.R.Cr.P. 39. Under Rule 39, the State is required to establish the violation of the conditions of probation alleged in the petition by a preponderance of the evidence. W.R.Cr.P. 39(a)(5). [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. Messer v. State, 2006 WY 141, ¶ 9, 145 P.3d 457, 460 (Wyo.2006). The proceedings for probation revocation 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 a condition of probation was violated. W.R.Cr.P. 39(a)(5) The second, dispositional phase, is triggered only upon a finding that a condition of probation was violated. In this phase, the district court must deliberate not only upon the violation, but also the reasons the conditions were originally imposed and the circumstances surrounding the violation. Mapp v. State, 929 P.2d 1222, 1226 (Wyo. 1996). Willfulness is determined at the dispositional phase of the proceedings. Sinning v. State, 2007 WY 193, ¶ 10, 172 P.3d 388, 390 (Wyo.2007). As a general rule of criminal law, probationary conditions must be specific, but general conditions are acceptable if specific guidelines will follow: Generally, the probationer should be apprised of the conditions with which he or she must comply, and the court should state in its order the terms and conditions on which it grants the suspension or probation.... In order to be enforceable, a condition of probation must not be vague, indefinite, or uncertain, and a general condition of probation is permissible only so long as it is contemplated that the court or its designee will provide the probationer with reasonable, specific direction within the ambit of the initially expressed general condition, and such guidance is in fact given. 24 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 2151 at 226 (2006) (internal footnotes omitted). [¶ 11] Unfortunately for the parties in this appeal, they did not have the benefit of our recent opinion in Edrington v. State, 2008 WY 70, 185 P.3d 1264 (Wyo.2008). Similar to the facts here, Mr. Edrington sought review of his probation revocation after he was terminated from an inpatient treatment program, the completion of which was a condition of his probation. The difference between the two cases, however, is that in Edrington, both sides readily agreed that the defendant failed to complete the program assigned to him, and that he was terminated from the program because he violated its rules. Here, Reece contends that he was not in violation of the rules, as they were not spelled out for him. Edrington's justification for not following the rules was that he suffered from a mental illness. However, upon review, this Court concluded that Edrington's mental illness did not prevent him from understanding the rules of his program, or the nature and consequences of his actions. Accordingly, in our estimation the district court did not abuse its discretion when it revoked Edrington's probation pursuant to W.R.Cr.P. 39 and reinstated his full sentence. [¶ 12] Though the facts of Edrington and this case differ slightly, we are able to take away from Edrington its main message that violating a main condition of one's probation is enough for revocation. Here, Reece contends that the actual terms of his probation failed to specify the required, and the prohibited, conduct. However, the probation order clearly stated that Reece must successfully complete the WYSTAR Resident Treatment Program. Reece was aware that his completion of the program was a requirement of his continued probation and was aware that by failing to complete the program, he would violate the terms of his probation. Reece stated the following at his probation revocation hearing: [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: You were discharged from the WYSTAR program? [REECE]: It was the 11th day of July. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: But you didn't complete that program, and they discharged you, correct? [REECE]: Yes. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: You knew that  so that was part of your probation, to complete that program? [REECE]: Yes, sir. Also, Reece's probation officer met with him to tell him to follow the rules and not to intimidate or act upset or angry. [¶ 13] The State refers us to United States v. Gallo, 20 F.3d 7, 12 (1st Cir.1994), which held: [T]hough a probationer is entitled to notice of what behavior will result in a violation, so that he may guide his actions accordingly, fair warning is not to be confused with the fullest, or most pertinacious, warning imaginable. Conditions of probation do not have to be cast in letters six feet high, or to describe every possible permutation, or to spell out every last, self-evident detail. Conditions of probation may afford fair warning even if they are not precise to the point of pedantry. In short, conditions of probation can be written  and must be read  in a commonsense way. We are of the same mind. After a thorough review of the record on appeal, we find nothing that leads us to a conclusion that Reece's due process rights were violated. Reece was fully aware that his successful completion of the WYSTAR program was a valid and essential requirement of his continued probation. He cannot now complain that he received inadequate notice as to what was required and prohibited within the terms of his probation. Rather, the revocation of his probation was entirely within the lower court's discretion, and we affirm.