Opinion ID: 2576096
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Sundowning

Text: [¶ 18] Mr. Coleman also contends the district court abused its discretion in sundowning him from Natrona County. The court, in its judgment and sentence, stated, IT IS FURTHER the recommendation of Court that if the Defendant is ever released on parole or into a less restrictive facility, that he not be granted release to Natrona County. [¶ 19] In Strickland v. State, 2004 WY 91, ¶ 37, 94 P.3d 1034, ¶ 37 (Wyo.2004), we held a defendant may be banished from certain small areas of the state, but such a condition must relate to the rehabilitative purposes of the sentence. In Strickland, the district court articulated no rehabilitative purpose for the banishment condition and thus this Court remanded the case with instructions that the banishment condition either be deleted or the district court justify the condition through clearly articulated findings. Id., ¶ 38. [¶ 20] Subsequent to Strickland, Crabtree v. State, 2005 WY 62, ¶¶ 15-16, 112 P.3d 618, ¶¶ 15-16 (Wyo.2005), gave us the opportunity to further articulate our position on banishment. . . . There is case law to suggest that banishment has no rehabilitative role in modern penology and is instead contrary to public policy. The courts finding that banishment violates public policy often focus on the problems associated with banishing a defendant from an entire state. These courts reason that [b]anishment would tend to incite dissension, provoke retaliation, and disturb that fundamental equality of political rights among the several states which is the basis of the Union itself. To permit one state to dump its convict criminals into another is not in the interests of safety and welfare; therefore, the punishment by banishment to another state is prohibited by public policy. We find this reasoning equally applicable to banishment from entire counties. We reiterate that we do not see how banishment from a county has any role in modern penology. Thus, absent extraordinary circumstances, banishment of this sort is never appropriate. Id., ¶ 16. Therefore, this portion of Mr. Coleman's sentence is reversed.