Opinion ID: 1391727
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: order to show cause procedure

Text: On March 6, 1980, appellant was served with an Order to Show Cause and to appear in court on March 20, 1980. [6] Attached to the order was a copy of the Motion to Revoke Probation and Application for Order to Show Cause filed by the Deputy County and Prosecuting Attorney. It alleged violation of the terms of appellant's probation in that appellant committed the offense of knowingly taking immodest, immoral or indecent liberties with a fourteen-year-old child, a violation of Wyoming Statute Section 14-3-105. Appellant contends that he was denied due process of law inasmuch as the show-cause proceeding placed upon him the burden of proof to show that he did not violate his probation. [7] Although the record reflects that the hearing was actually conducted by initial presentation of evidence and testimony by the State, with cross-examination by appellant, followed by appellant's testimony in his behalf, i.e., other than in a show cause method, this issue must also be resolved on the basis that it cannot be raised on appeal inasmuch as it was not called to the attention of the trial court. Hampton v. State, supra. Because the proceeding was conducted in a fashion whereby the State had the burden of proof to show violation of the terms and conditions of parole, material prejudice cannot be shown. Thus, plain error does not exist. Madrid v. State, supra. Affirmed.