Opinion ID: 2584667
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Did the court err by failing to advise Mr. Sena about the potential impact of the Addicted Offender Accountability Act on his sentence?

Text: [¶ 21] The portion of Rule 11 relevant to this issue requires the Court to determine that the defendant understands the mandatory minimum penalty provided by law, if any, and the maximum possible penalty provided by law and other sanctions which could attend a conviction. W.R.Cr.P. 11(b)(1). To reiterate a point noted above, the broad purpose of Rule 11 is to allow the judge to determine whether the defendant entered the plea voluntarily, and to be truly voluntary, a plea must be made with an understanding of the consequences of the plea. Major, ¶ 11, 83 P.3d at 472. [¶ 22] Mr. Sena asserts that he was not adequately advised of the maximum possible penalty because he was not informed of the potential impact on his sentence of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-13-1303, part of Wyoming's Addicted Offender Accountability Act. Pursuant to this statute, a qualified offender (defined as a person convicted of a felony whom the court finds has a need for alcohol or other drug treatment, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-13-1301(a)(iv)) may be placed on probation to allow him to participate in a treatment program. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-13-1303(a). We have observed that the unambiguous purpose of the Act, as set forth in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-13-1304, is to determine whether an offender `could participate in a treatment program without posing an unreasonable risk to the safety of the public.' Janpol v. State, 2008 WY 21, ¶ 20, 178 P.3d 396, 403 (Wyo.2008) (emphasis omitted). [¶ 23] Mr. Sena points out that the court found him to be a qualified offender, and therefore, he was eligible for probation rather than incarceration. Because probation is a possible sentence, he asserts, the trial court must so advise Mr. Sena. This assertion is unsupported by the language of Rule 11, and contrary to our precedent. [¶ 24] Mr. Sena was charged with a violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-501(b) and (f)(ii). The statute does not mandate a minimum penalty for this crime, so the court was not required to inform Mr. Sena of any mandatory minimum penalty. The statute provides for a maximum penalty of not more than five (5) years, a fine of not more than two thousand dollars ($2,000.00), or both. During the colloquy, the court informed Mr. Sena that the maximum penalty for that offense is five years confinement and a $2,000 fine. The court then asked Mr. Sena, Do you understand the charge against you and the maximum penalty? Mr. Sena responded, Yes, Your Honor. [¶ 25] Under Wyoming law, the restraints of probation cannot exceed a period in excess of the maximum term of imprisonment authorized by the statute violated. Hicklin v. State, 535 P.2d 743, 753 (Wyo. 1975); see also Lanier v. State, 900 P.2d 1161, 1163 (Wyo.1995). Accordingly, Mr. Sena could not have been sentenced to a term of probation longer than five years. We have recognized that probation is `an authorized mode of mild and ambulatory punishment,' and that a person on probation is not serving a sentence but is in a status something less than imprisonment. Hicklin, 535 P.2d at 753 (emphasis added) (quoting Korematsu v. United States, 319 U.S. 432, 435, 63 S.Ct. 1124, 1126, 87 L.Ed. 1497, 1499 (1943)). Based on this precedent, it is apparent that five years of probation is a less severe penalty than five years of imprisonment. Mr. Sena was informed, and understood, that the maximum possible penalty for the crime charged against him was five years imprisonment. Because probation was not the maximum possible penalty provided by law, the court was not required by Rule 11 to inform Mr. Sena of the possibility of probation.