Opinion ID: 2625738
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Alleged Violations of W.R.Cr.P. 32

Text: [¶ 28] W.R.Cr.P. 32(a)(3)(A) requires that [a]t least 10 days before imposing sentence, unless this minimum period is waived by the defendant, the court shall provide the defendant and the defendant's counsel with a copy of the [PSI]. Mr. Duke asserts that the rule was violated because he received the PSI on the day he was sentenced and did not waive the 10-day requirement. As illustrated by the following exchange, Mr. Duke waived the 10-day notice requirement: The Court: Have you received a copy of the presentence investigation report and ASI [Addiction Severity Index] evaluation? The Defendant: I received it here at the courthouse, Your Honor. The Court: You just now received it this morning? The Defendant: Yes, Your Honor. The Court: So you've not had the opportunity to review it, to  The Defendant: I have. The Court:  discuss it with your attorney? The Defendant: I have. We discussed it just on the bench right there. The Court: Have you had all the time that you need? The Defendant: Yes, Your Honor. [¶ 29] In addition, the record clearly shows that the PSI was filed on October 22, 2007, well in advance of the November 5, 2007 sentencing hearing. The district court also separately asked Mr. Duke's counsel whether she received the PSI in a timely manner, and counsel responded affirmatively. [¶ 30] Mr. Duke contends on appeal that he has significant literacy limitations that prevented him from reading and understanding the PSI in the time provided. He contends that this is demonstrated by the poor quality of the written statement provided to the Probation/Parole Agent and included in the PSI. We find that this allegation is not supported by the record. While Mr. Duke's written statement does contain some grammar and spelling errors, it is clearly comprehensible and provides no evidence that Mr. Duke was unable to understand the PSI. We find no violation of W.R.Cr.P. 32(a)(3)(A) given this record. [¶ 31] Mr. Duke also contends that the district court violated W.R.Cr.P. 32(a)(3)(C). That provision provides, in relevant part: If the comments of the defendant and the defendant's counsel or testimony or other information introduced by them allege any factual inaccuracy in the presentence investigation report or the summary of the report or part thereof, the court shall, as to each matter controverted, make: (i) A finding as to the allegation; or (ii) A determination that no such finding is necessary because the matter controverted will not be taken into account in sentencing. A written record of such findings and determinations shall be appended to and accompany any copy of the presentence investigation report thereafter made available to penal institutions. During the sentencing hearing, after defense counsel made several suggested corrections that the court accepted, the following exchange occurred: The Court: Anything else? [Defense Counsel]: Under the evaluation recommendation, page 12  this is Roman numeral VII. The parts where the agent is making [her] recommendation, [she's] using the burglary and attempted rape and cruelty to animals, which were the additions and deletions which we have discussed just now. And that is all, Your Honor. [¶ 32] Mr. Duke contends that defense counsel's comment was an allegation of a factual inaccuracy in the contents of the PSI, and that the court was obligated by W.R.Cr.P. 32(a)(3)(C) either to make a finding regarding the disputed provision or to find that the provision would not be considered in sentencing. We disagree. When viewed in context, it is apparent that counsel was simply pointing out that the court should consider the Probation/Parole Agent's sentencing recommendation in light of the factual corrections accepted by the court. Defense counsel was not making an allegation of factual inaccuracy, and no response or action from the district court was required. We discern no violation of a clear and unequivocal rule of law.