Opinion ID: 2507070
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Whether the presentence investigation report improperly contained confidential information?

Text: [¶ 14] Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-13-407(a)(ii) (LexisNexis 2007) directs probation and parole agents to [i]nvestigate all cases referred by any court, . . . and report to the court, . . . in writing[.] W.R.Cr.P. 32(a) governs the preparation of the report, and dictates its contents. As to the confidentiality of the information collected in the process, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-13-409 (LexisNexis 2007) provides as follows: All information and data obtained in the discharge of official duties by probation and parole agents is privileged information and shall not be disclosed directly or indirectly to anyone other than to the judge, the department or to others entitled to receive reports unless and until otherwise ordered by the judge, board or department. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-13-1302 (LexisNexis 2007) requires, in pertinent part, that any person convicted of a felony shall receive, as a part of a presentence report, a substance abuse assessment. [¶ 15] On August 30, 2006, the district court ordered that a presentence investigation be conducted and that such should include a substance abuse assessment pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-13-1302. The presentence investigation report (PSI) was filed on October 12, 2006. The appellant objected to the PSI and asked that a new report be completed, on the ground that the information provided by the person conducting the substance abuse assessment went far beyond the purpose of the statutethe determination of whether a defendant needed alcohol or drug treatmentand contained comments made by the appellant, as well as impressions formed by the evaluator, that negatively affected the sentencing recommendations of the probation and parole agent conducting the investigation. Further, the appellant contended that, by submitting information beyond that necessary for the evaluation report, the PSI violated the rules of the Wyoming Department of Health and federal confidentiality statutes. The State's response to the appellant's motion emphasized the fact that the allegedly confidential information, mostly having to do with the appellant's violent tendencies, was relevant to the evaluator's report, and therefore not confidential, because it was necessary information for identifying and recommending an appropriate treatment program. In addition, the State contended that the appellant had signed a release, authorizing the sharing of the information with the probation and parole agent, and a copy of the release is attached to the State's response. [¶ 16] Both the appellant and the State contend that this Court should review this sentencing decision for an abuse of discretion. See Gorseth v. State, 2006 WY 109, ¶ 15, 141 P.3d 698, 703 (Wyo.2006); and Doherty v. State, 2006 WY 39, ¶ 30, 131 P.3d 963, 972 (Wyo.2006). We perceive, however, that this issue primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the Addicted Offender Accountability Act, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-13-1301, et seq. (LexisNexis 2007), which is a question of law that we review de novo. Alcorn v. Sauer Drilling Co., 2006 WY 15, ¶ 6, 126 P.3d 924, 925 (Wyo.2006); Reiter v. State, 2001 WY 116, ¶ 7, 36 P.3d 586, 589 (Wyo.2001). [¶ 17] The question of statutory construction arises out of two separate sections of the Addicted Offender Accountability Act. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-13-1301(a)(v) (LexisNexis 2007), reads as follows: (v) Substance abuse assessment means an evaluation conducted by a qualified person using practices and procedures approved by the department of health to determine whether a person has a need for alcohol or other drug treatment and the level of treatment services required to treat that person[.] [¶ 18] In turn, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-13-1304 (LexisNexis 2007) reads as follows: If a person has been convicted of a violent felony or delivery or unlawful manufacture of a controlled substance under W.S. XX-X-XXXX, there is a rebuttable presumption that the person is not a qualified offender for purposes of sentencing under this act. This presumption may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence that the person who is an otherwise qualified offender convicted of a violent felony could participate in a treatment program without posing an unreasonable risk to the safety of the public. As to persons convicted of manufacture or delivery of a controlled substance, the presumption may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence that the person committed the crime because of his own dependency. [¶ 19] It is the thrust of the appellant's argument that, because he was convicted of committing a violent felony, he was not a qualified offender under the Act, and that, therefore, the information provided by the evaluator could not have met the purpose of the Actto provide treatment. Further, the appellant contends that statements he made to the evaluator about his past, or about possible violent acts in the future, were not related to any drug or alcohol treatment, and were, therefore, inadmissible at sentencing. [¶ 20] We believe the appellant reads the Act too narrowly. The purpose of the Act is not just to identify any alcohol or drug problem that an offender may have, or even just to identify a treatment plan that may help the offender. Rather, 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.  (Emphasis added.) The information contained in the evaluator's report to the probation and parole officer, which information related directly to the appellant's propensity for violence, was meant to be related to the district court because it was indispensable in deciding whether treatment options should be considered as part of any sentence. [2] Consequently, the district court did not err, as a matter of law, in considering that information. [3]