Opinion ID: 2634089
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Did the district court err in considering psychiatric information contained in the presentence investigation report?

Text: [¶20] As set forth earlier herein, the PSI contained a statutorily required substance abuse assessment, known as an ASIAddiction Severity Index. See supra ¶ 7. Although he did not object below, the appellant contends on appeal that the district court erred in considering at sentencing psychiatric information found in the ASI. The appellant believes we should review this error for an abuse of discretion, while the State argues that the lack of an objection below means that plain error analysis is appropriate. [¶21] Having just decided this very issue in Janpol v. State, 2008 WY 21, ¶¶ 14-20, ___ P.3d ___, ___ (Wyo. 2008), we decline to repeat the detailed analysis of that case. Suffice it to say that, because the question is one of statutory constructionwhether the judge is legally entitled under the statute to consider the psychiatric informationit is a question of law that we review de novo. The short answer is that the very intent of the statute is to provide information to the sentencing judge concerning the possibility of placing the offender in a treatment program without creating a risk to public safety, and that the psychiatric information is vital to that determination. Furthermore, because the psychiatric information was used for the express purpose for which it was disclosedcompletion of the ASI and PSIthere was no confidentiality breach. No error occurred.