Court Opinion

ID: 9789256
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:32:31.024753+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:21.115220
License: Public Domain

HILL, Justice,
specially concurring.
[T 14] I agree with the majority that Kelley has not adequately demonstrated that his substantial right to be sentenced for Ais crime was adversely affected by the district court in the process of imposing sentence. Furthermore, I agree that the district court did not abuse its broad discretion in imposing the sentence it ultimately did impose, despite the plea agreement and the State's unequivocal recommendation of that plea agreement:
Sentencing decisions are normally within the discretion of the trial court. Hamill v. State, 948 P.2d 1856, 1858 (Wyo.1997). "A sentence will not be disturbed because of sentencing procedures unless the defen*526dant can show an abuse of discretion, procedural conduct prejudicial to him, and cireumstances which manifest inherent unfairness and injustice, or conduct which offends the public sense of fair play." Smith v. State, 941 P.2d 749, 450 (Wyo.1997). "An error warrants reversal only when it is prejudicial and it affects an appellant's substantial rights. The party who is appealing bears the burden to establish that an error was prejudicial." Candelaria v. State, 895 P.2d 484, 489-40 (Wyo.1995) (citations omitted) [overruled in part on other grounds by Allen v. State, 2002 WY 48, 43 P.3d 551 (Wyo.2002) ]; see also Robinson v. Hamblin, 914 P.2d 152, 155 (Wyo.1996).
Carothers v. State, 2008 WY 58, ¶ 23, 185 P.3d 1, 14-15 (Wyo.2008) (quoting Lee v. State, 2001 WY 129, ¶ 10, 36 P.3d 1133, 1138 (Wyo.2001)).
[¶ 15] However, I am unable to agree that the language employed by the district court, which was directed to those who are students at Wyo Tech and who are from places outside Wyoming, can be condoned. 24 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 1997 at 24-25 (2006). I consider it an improper factor to have been considered under the cireumstances of this case, and I think we need to say that.
[T16] As an aside, I think the majority's reliance on the case Wright v. State, 670 P.2d 1090, 1093 (Wyo.1983) is ill-advised. The Wright case had a long history in this Court, but the final decision, splintered as it was, was to step back from our initial decision. In Wright v. State, 707 P.2d 153, 157 (Wyo.1985) we held:
We conclude that the denial of probation to Grant Alan Wright was a departure from the trial judge's own practice which was not supported by any articulable valid reason in the record. Although a majority of the court concluded that the sentence analyzed in isolation does not demonstrate a clear abuse of discretion, a different majority is equally satisfied that the denial of probation to Grant Alan Wright in this instance manifests a substantial failure of justice, and it must be corrected.
The decision of this court is that this case is to be remanded to the district court with instruction that the judgment and sentence shall be adjusted to reflect that the execution of the sentence to a term of two to four years (which incidentally Wright has not attacked) be suspended, and he is to be placed on probation for four years, in accordance with the usual conditions of probation imposed in similar cases, with the term of probation to commence on January 21, 1983.