Opinion ID: 2604731
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: due consideration to petition for probation

Text: When probation is an alternative to incarceration, the sentencing judge must consider it. Daniel v. State, supra; Jones v. State, supra; Kenney v. State, supra; Taylor v. State, supra; Eaton v. State, supra.    The only right which an applicant for probation possesses is that his petition should be considered by the court.    Sanchez v. State, supra, 592 P.2d at 1137. We also commented that it would be helpful if the reasons for granting or denying probation were noted by the sentencing judge. We strongly recommend that the trial judges explain their reasons for denying probation and indicate the factors they considered in imposing sentence. Daniel v. State, supra, 644 P.2d at 180. In this case, a presentence investigation was conducted and the report was made to the judge. At the start of the sentencing proceedings, the court inquired:    Counsel are aware of the presentence investigation summary which has been submitted through the Probation and Parole Department. Do each of you have a copy? Appellant's counsel acknowledged receipt of the copy and noted a few minor mistakes in it, i.e. appellant moved to Sheridan (not Sundance) when he was in the eighth (not third) grade, and his mother's first name is Emile not Emmile. Appellant's counsel made a detailed plea to the court for probation, referring a number of times to the presentence report. The prosecuting attorney argued to the court that a sentence of incarceration be imposed, calling attention to the seriousness of the crime. Before imposing sentence, the court said to appellant: Well, Mr. Wright, the Court is impressed with your background and I'm very encouraged with the fact that you are doing well in school and we will take that of course into consideration. The crime of which you stand convicted is a very serious one even though it was for the delivery of a small amount. It was nonetheless a delivery and therefore under our statutes a felony. Considering all the factors in the case, the Court determines that you are not a fit subject for probation, but that because of all the circumstances, a minimum sentence is going to be imposed and that will be a period from two to four years in the Wyoming State Penitentiary.    The court also specifically called appellant's attention to his right to petition the Court for a sentence reduction within 120 days. [4] The sentencing court obviously did give consideration to the request for probation.    The fact that probation was requested and the appearance of a probation plan in the pre-sentence report can lead to no conclusion but that the court could not avoid giving it consideration.    Beaulieu v. State, Wyo., 608 P.2d 275 (1980). The judge and counsel talked about probation, reference was made to the presentence report which contained a recommendation of probation, and the court specifically advised appellant that, in the court's opinion, you are not a fit subject for probation in consideration of all the factors in the case. Under the circumstances, we cannot say that the court created an error of law or acted in a manner exceeding the bounds of reason. Probation was considered. The severity of the crime and all the factors of the case were considered. There was no abuse of discretion in failure to give due consideration to the petition for probation.