Opinion ID: 2514668
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Probation Revocation/Findings of Fact

Text: [¶ 14] Reece's second and final argument on appeal is that the district court failed to make adequate findings to justify the revocation of his probation. He complains that the court did not specify the probation condition that was violated, find that the probation violation was willful, or provide reasons for the revocation. In response, the State insists that the district court's findings were adequate, and that given Reece's admission that he did not complete the WYSTAR program, the court properly found that Reece violated his probation. [¶ 15] As we stated above, probation revocation proceedings are governed by W.R.Cr.P. 39, and we have previously stated that the process consists of two parts: The first part, the adjudicatory phase, requires the district court to determine by a preponderance of the evidence whether a condition of probation was violated. The second, dispositional phase, is triggered only upon a finding that a condition of probation was violated. In this phase, the district court must deliberate not only upon the violation, but also the reasons the conditions were originally imposed and the circumstances surrounding the violation. After consideration of all these factors, the district court must then determine the appropriate consequences of the probationer's violation. Mapp, 929 P.2d at 1226. Though Reece is seemingly unclear on what the specific violation of probation was or what the probation revocation is based upon, we find clear support in the record that the revocation was based upon Reece's failure to complete the WYSTAR program, which was an explicit condition of his probation. [¶ 16] The district court relied upon Reece's admission that he was discharged from WYSTAR during the revocation hearing. The court also relied upon the following testimony from Reece, also from the revocation hearing: [Defense Counsel]: You were discharged from the WYSTAR program? [Reece]: It was the 11th of July. [Defense Counsel]: But you didn't complete that program, and they discharged you, correct? [Reece]: Yes. [Defense Counsel]: You knew that  so that was part of your probation, to complete that program? [Reece]: Yes, sir. . . . . The Court: All right, I find there is a factual basis for the admission. The admission has been made voluntarily. The court also heard from Reece's WYSTAR Clinician, Byron Lee, and Reece's probation officer, Jim Fudge, both of whom confirmed that Reece did not complete WYSTAR. Lee testified at length about Reece's WYSTAR experience. First, he stated that he had concerns about Reece's willingness to change, combative mentality, and [defiant] behaviors. Lee also testified that Reece's unwillingness to change was exacerbated by a number of ill feelings and resentment towards the legal system and the victim in the case, and that he appeared to [have] an inability to fully accept and hold himself accountable to those standards and move on. Lee discussed Reece's vulgar language ... and extreme and unhealthy thoughts on gender roles. Lee also stated: There comes a point where we really look at a willingness to change at this facility, because we have to look at and honor the 30 other guys we have here in treatment also. And in order to do that, you know, that openness and honesty is invited and it is necessary, because that does give us the therapeutic opportunity to work through that. [Reece] was good at bringing that stuff out; however, from  my opinion is, you know, the ability for a man to disagree, and then from [Reece]'s perspective in my opinion, there was a barrier put up saying, `I will not do this. I am not going to go and proceed with this.' [¶ 17] Along with testimony, the court also considered the Petition for Revocation of Probation, which bolstered the court's decision to revoke. Attached to the petition were several documents, including an affidavit by Fudge, a letter from Fudge to the State's attorney, and a letter by Byron Lee to the district court. In Fudge's letter, he stated that, ... WYSTAR could provide him classes in anger management but that the anger management classes were `bullshit' and that he would not apply it once he is on the street. In Lee's letter, he summed up Reece's time at WYSTAR as follows: During treatment, [Reece] demonstrated uneven progress. At times, [Reece] appeared invested in the treatment experience; however, clinical staff had concerns about his willingness to change, combative mentality, and defiant behaviors. These concerns were based on [Reece's] unwillingness to be open-minded to input and his strong negative bias against staff and the legal system. His verbal disrespect for clerical, mentoring and clinical staff created significant tension and became a safety concern. Throughout his treatment, [Reece] minimized the presence of his aggressive nature and combative verbal tactics. He stated to his clinician that, `I will never use' the information provided to him through domestic violence and anger management classes in his life outside of treatment. . . . . Because of Mr. Reece's intimidating verbal behavior it became necessary to discharge him in immediate fashion, and a continuing care plan was not devised, as the client was released to the custody of the Sheridan County Probation and Parole. [¶ 18] Based upon Reece's admission that he did not complete the WYSTAR program, as well as the testimony heard and documents reviewed by the district court, we conclude it was not an abuse of discretion for the district court to revoke Reece's probation. Furthermore, the district court had a more than adequate factual basis upon which to base the revocation. The court expressly found that Reece knowingly admitted to his violation. Only after contemplating the information it had before it did the court make its decision that Reece's violation warranted probation revocation.