Opinion ID: 2515997
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: did the district court violate w.r.cr.p. 11 in allowing the appellant to waive a presentence investigation report (psi)?

Text: [¶ 16] W.R.Cr.P. 11(e)(7) provides that a presentence investigation may not be waived by plea agreement for any felony. Despite the use of the word may, this clearly is a mandatory provision. See Board of County Com'rs of Fremont County v. State ex rel. Miller, 369 P.2d 537, 542 (Wyo. 1962) and Mayor v. Board of Land Com'rs, 64 Wyo. 409, 192 P.2d 403, 411 (1948). The appellant does little but raise this issue in his appellate brief, citing no authority for the appropriate remedy for a breach, and even admitting that it was the appellant, himself, who wanted to waive the PSI. He does suggest three purposes for the rule: (1) to keep criminal defendants from hiding their lengthy records; (2) to make sure defendants are familiar with their prior record; and (3) to give judges information upon which to base appropriate sentences. [¶ 17] Even if we accept these purposes, however, they are of little assistance to the appellant. Available to the district court at sentencing, and to counsel before sentencing, was a 1992 PSI. The appellant testified that he was incarcerated, apparently for the crime that generated that PSI, until 1997. Further, he did not want a new PSI, for fear the district judge would learn of a similar crime in Nebraska. The State was aware of the appellant's activities since the date of the 1992 PSI. [¶ 18] Undoubtedly, the intent of W.R.Cr.P. 11(e)(7) is that a new PSI be done whenever a felon is sentenced after a plea agreement. [6] While the letter of the law may have been violated in the instant case, the district court and counsel did abide by its spirit. It might even be said, since the 1992 PSI was used, that there was no violation of the rule at all, especially given the information available as to the appellant's activities since that date. At most, this was a slight variance from the procedures required by this rule which [did] not affect substantial rights of the appellant, and we may disregard it. W.R.Cr.P. 11(h). There was no miscarriage of justice. See Bird v. State, 901 P.2d 1123, 1128-30 (Wyo.1995), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 907, 121 S.Ct. 253, 148 L.Ed.2d 183 (2000). We conclude that the district court did not violate W.R.Cr.P. 11 in any substantial manner in proceeding to sentencing with the 1992 PSI and other available information.