Opinion ID: 2543837
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: speedy sentencing

Text: [¶ 29] We review speedy sentencing claims under an abuse of discretion standard. Reagan v. State, 14 P.3d 925, 927 (Wyo.2000). Judicial discretion is a composite of many things, among which are conclusions drawn from objective criteria; it means a sound judgment exercised with regard to what is right under the circumstances and without doing so arbitrarily or capriciously. Byerly v. Madsen, 41 Wash.App. 495, 704 P.2d 1236 (1985). Reagan, 14 P.3d at 927 ( quoting Vaughn v. State, 962 P.2d 149, 151 (Wyo.1998)). The specific question now before this Court is whether it was an abuse of discretion for the district court to delay sentencing on the second burglary for three years under the particular circumstances of this case. [¶ 30] The felony information charging the appellant with the second burglary was filed on November 22, 1996. On January 21, 1997, the appellant filed a Waiver of Speedy Preliminary Hearing Within Ten- or Twenty-Day Time Requirement and Request for Continuance of Preliminary Hearing. On the same date, he waived his right to a preliminary hearing and the case was transferred to the district court. Arraignment in the district court occurred on February 12, 1997. [10] The appellant pled guilty to both the first and second burglary, he was adjudicated guilty of both, and a presentence investigation was ordered. [¶ 31] The evidentiary hearing for sentencing purposes took place on June 20, 1997. Sentence was imposed at a final hearing on June 26, 1997. It was at this latter hearing that the colloquy about speedy sentencing quoted previously herein occurred among the district court, defense counsel, and the appellant. In announcing his desire to defer imposing a prison sentence or fine for the second burglary, the district court informed the appellant specifically that [y]ou have a right, legally, to a speedy sentencing, and I cannot defer that portion of the sentence unless you are willing to give up that right. Defense counsel than informed the district court that he had previously discussed with the appellant his right to speedy sentencing, and that it was the appellant's wish to waive a speedy sentencing, insofar as the term of incarceration and fine go, indefinitely until the Court resets the matter. The appellant indicated that he agreed with what his attorney had said. The record further reflects that it was the district court's intent to have the appellant submit a written waiver of speedy sentencing. No written waiver was ever filed. [¶ 32] The appellant served his split sentence and was placed on supervised probation. On September 1, 2000, the State filed a petition to revoke probation. After a hearing on the appellant's Motion to Dismiss Probation Revocation in Part; Motion to Dismiss [the Second Burglary] in Whole and Objections to Imposition of Prison Sentencing in Either [Case], the district court ruled that, since the appellant had never been on probation for the second burglary, the petition should be dismissed in that regard. The district court further ruled, however, that the appellant had voluntarily waived speedy sentencing, that sentencing had been deferred as an accommodation to the appellant so he could attend the YSI program, and that the appellant could still be sentenced for the second burglary. On October 2, 2000, the appellant was sentenced to a term of not less than four years and not more than five years, with credit for 218 days served. [¶ 33] The appellant's current argument that this series of events violated his right to speedy sentencing is two-pronged. First, citing Burkett v. Cunningham, 826 F.2d 1208 (3rd Cir.1987) and Perez v. Sullivan, 793 F.2d 249 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 936, 107 S.Ct. 413, 93 L.Ed.2d 364 (1986), he contends that any unreasonable sentencing delay violates a defendant's right to due process of law. His primary argument is based upon the following language from Yates v. State, 792 P.2d 187, 191 (Wyo.1990): We elect to hold that a delay in sentencing in excess of one calendar year from the date guilt is established, either by trial, whether to a jury or to the court, or upon a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, is presumptively unreasonable. A court may not pronounce sentence on a defendant after the expiration of such time, unless the record clearly establishes those facts and circumstances that excuse the delay, thus making later imposition of the sentence reasonable. The State must bear the burden of establishing those facts and circumstances. Our rule with respect to the one-year period is derived in consonance with Rule 36(b), W.R.Cr.P. [now W.R.Cr.P. 35(b)], which permits a trial court to reduce a sentence within one year of its imposition. We recognize that one year is an appropriate period of time within which a district court may reconsider the sentence that it has imposed, and it follows that one year also is a reasonable period of time to require the imposition of sentence. While we hold that the delay in excess of one year is presumptively unreasonable, we do not hold that the delay serves to deprive the district court of jurisdiction. Rather, we hold that the delay exceeds the bounds of reason if its occurs beyond that date and, in the interest of fairness, due process of law, and expeditious handling of court matters, a court should be foreclosed from imposing sentence after the one year period of time. [¶ 34] The State responds by arguing that the record does, indeed, reveal those facts and circumstances that excuse the delay. The State points to the transcript of the June 20, 1997, hearing, where the appellant, his attorney, his parents, and the probation agent aggressively prevailed upon the district court to allow the appellant to attend the YSI program in Missouri, rather than go to prison. The State then concludes that it was the district court's desire to accommodate this request that led the district court to defer sentencing on the second burglary. [¶ 35] A close reading of the transcripts from both the June 20, 1997, and the June 26, 1997, hearings, however, reveals no specific statement where the district court indicated that the decision to defer sentencing for the second burglary was based on any desire to accommodate the appellant. Read together, the transcripts of both hearings do suggest that the decision to impose a split sentence and to allow a furlough for the YSI program was made to accommodate that request. But the transcripts of the sentencing hearings do not make clear why the appellant could not have been sentenced on the second burglary, with supervised probation to include participation in the YSI program. [¶ 36] Three years later, at the hearing on the appellant's Motion to Dismiss Probation Revocation in Part; Motion to Dismiss [the Second Burglary] in Whole and Objections to Imposition of Prison Sentencing in Either [Case], the district court did indicate that its decision to defer sentencing was made as an accommodation to the appellant: Regarding Case Number [01-14], the Court will further rule that that matter is still open for sentencing, in view of the fact that there was, in open court, on the record, a waiver of speedy sentencing, and Mr. Daugherty was here, he was represented by counsel, he was prevailing on the Court to do that very thing, and it was an accommodation to him so that he could go to the program he was proposing to go to. And the only way the Court was willing to do that was if he waived his right to speedy sentencing, which he did. It's all in the record. [¶ 37] One inference that might be made from this record is that, for some reason, the appellant could not participate in the YSI program if he was under a sentence, even a probationary sentence, for the second burglary. But another inference is that the district court wanted to see whether the appellant succeeded in that program before imposing the second sentence. The existence of that inference leads to the second prong of the appellant's speedy sentencing attack, which is his contention that, while he did waive his right to speedy sentencing, he did not do so voluntarily and knowingly. His argument is encapsulated in the following sentences from his appellate brief: The District Court accepted Daugherty's purported waiver without advising him of the implications or consequences of such waiver. The lack of notification violated Daugherty's constitutional rights and the violation was especially prejudicial in light of the subsequent developments in this case. Daugherty was ultimately sentenced after the State filed a petition to revoke his probation in Case No. [01-13]. Consequently, the effect of the delay in sentencing was to place Daugherty on probation without advising him of the conditions of that probation or the consequences of failing to comply with the implied conditions. Under these circumstances, there is simply no question that Daugherty was not aware of the nature of the right he was waiving or the consequences of the waiver. [¶ 38] For a waiver to be valid, there must be `an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege,' and the waiver must be knowingly and intelligently made. Nelson v. State, 934 P.2d 1238, 1241 (Wyo.1997) ( quoting Van Riper v. State, 882 P.2d 230, 234 (Wyo.1994)). A defendant need not, however, know and understand every possible consequence of this waiver for it to be valid. Solis v. State, 851 P.2d 1296, 1299 (Wyo.1993). Whether a waiver was made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently depends upon the surrounding facts and circumstances. Id.; Mapp v. State, 953 P.2d 140, 144 (Wyo.1998). The state bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a waiver was made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. Solis, 851 P.2d at 1299. [¶ 39] In the instant case, the district court explained to the appellant that: (1) he had a legal right to speedy sentencing; (2) sentencing could not be deferred unless he waived that right; and (3) the part of sentencing that would be deferred would be any prison sentence or fine. In addition, defense counsel informed the district court, in the presence of the appellant, that: (1) counsel previously had spoken with the appellant about his speedy sentencing rights; (2) the appellant wished to waive speedy sentencing as to any prison sentence or fine; and (3) sentencing would be deferred indefinitely until the Court resets the matter. In response to a question from the district court, the appellant indicated his agreement with what his counsel had said. [¶ 40] Despite all this information as to the existence of the speedy sentencing right, there is a glaring absence in the record of anything to indicate the appellant was advised what it was that could bring about sentencing on the second burglary. The district court indicated in open court only that it wished to defer sentencing, and did not say for how long or for what reasons. Defense counsel said that the appellant agreed to postpone sentencing indefinitely until the Court resets the matter. The written Sentence & Probation Order merely defers sentencing based upon the appellant's waiver of speedy sentencing. Nowhere in the record is there any indication that imposition of sentencing for the second burglary would occur as a result of a probation violation under the sentence being served for the first burglary. Yet, the appellant argues, that is exactly what happened in this case. Either that, or he was effectively placed on probation for the second burglary, with the probationary condition being that he not violate his probation for the first burglary. We agree with the appellant that his waiver was not made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. [¶ 41] This Court is not willing to countenance an open-ended deferral of sentencing under the circumstances of this case. In Yates, we adopted a one-year standard of presumptive reasonableness for speedy sentencing, with the state bearing the burden of establishing such facts and circumstances as might excuse a delay beyond one year. Yates, 792 P.2d at 191. Here, sentencing occurred three years after guilt was established. There is nothing in the record to indicate why sentencing did not occur in the interim period. For instance, why was sentence not imposed for the second burglary when the appellant had successfully completed the one-year period of his split sentence for the first burglary? Beyond that, if the imposition of a sentence for the second burglary was meant to be a penalty for violation of probation on the first burglary, or, stated differently, if successful probation on the first burglary was a condition to the continued deferral of sentencing on the second burglary, the appellant was never so informed. Such a lapse implicates the appellant's right to the due process of law in that he had no notice of such consequences. See Solis, 851 P.2d at 1299. [¶ 42] Of equal concern where there has been an unreasonable sentencing delay is the possibility that, when sentencing finally occurs, the sentencing court will consider matters that occurred after sentence should have been imposed, thereby exposing the defendant to a greater punishment. Yates, 792 P.2d at 192. In particular, there is a danger that punishment will be increased because of the conduct that serves as the basis for a later probation revocation. Id.; Reagan, 14 P.3d at 927-28. There is at least an argument that this occurred in the present case, where the appellant was sentenced to a lengthier sentence than had been requested by the State at the original sentencing hearing. [11] [¶ 43] In Wlodarczyk, 836 P.2d at 286-87, we identified the seven types of sentences available under the Wyoming statutes: (1) an indeterminate sentence under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-13-201; (2) deferred prosecution under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-13-301; (3) straight probation under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-13-302; (4) probation with suspended imposition of sentence under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-13-302; (5) probation with suspended sentence under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-13-302; (6) classical split sentencing under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-13-107(a); and (7) probationary split sentencing under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-13-107(c). None of these alternatives contemplates the lack of sentencing that occurred with respect to the second burglary in the instant case. The closest would be option (7)probationary split sentencingbut even that option requires a specific probationary period and a stated condition that sentence be imposed upon probation violation. [¶ 44] W.R.Cr.P. 32(c)(1) contains clear guidance for trial courts wishing to overcome the presumption that a delay in sentencing for over a year is unreasonable: Sentence shall be imposed without unnecessary delay, the court may, when there is a factor important to the sentencing determination that is not then capable of being resolved, postpone the imposition of sentence for a reasonable time until the factor is capable of being resolved. If sentence is not to be imposed at the time guilt is established or soon thereafter, the trial court must ensure that the record clearly indicates the reason for the delay and the circumstances under which the matter will be reset for sentencing.