Court Opinion

ID: 9955078
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-27 16:18:25.370907+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:14.912324
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING

                                     2024 WY 33

                                                       OCTOBER TERM, A.D. 2023

                                                              March 27, 2024

ZACHARY RYAN BURKE,

Appellant
(Defendant),

v.                                                          S-23-0212

THE STATE OF WYOMING,

Appellee
(Plaintiff).

                   Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County
                    The Honorable Thomas T.C. Campbell, Judge

Representing Appellant:
      Zachary Ryan Burke, pro se.

Representing Appellee:
      Bridget Hill, Attorney General; Jenny L. Craig, Deputy Attorney General; Kristen
      R. Jones, Senior Assistant Attorney General; John J. Woykovsky, Senior Assistant
      Attorney General.

Before FOX, C.J., and KAUTZ*, BOOMGAARDEN, GRAY, and FENN, JJ.

* Justice Kautz retired from judicial office effective March 26, 2024, and, pursuant to
Article 5, § 5 of the Wyoming Constitution and Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 5-1-106(f) (2023), he was
reassigned to act on this matter on March 27, 2024.
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in Pacific Reporter Third. Readers are
requested to notify the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002, of
any typographical or other formal errors so that correction may be made before final publication in the
permanent volume.
FOX, Chief Justice.

[¶1] Zachary Ryan Burke, appearing pro se, appeals the district court’s order denying
his motion for sentence modification or reduction. Mr. Burke contends that the district
court abused its discretion because it did not consider the merits of his motion. We
affirm.

                                          ISSUE

[¶2]   Mr. Burke presents a single issue on appeal, which we rephrase as:

              1. Did the district court err when it denied Mr. Burke’s
                 motion for sentence modification or reduction?

                                          FACTS

[¶3] Pursuant to a plea agreement, Mr. Burke pled guilty to one count of child abuse.
The district court imposed a sentence of six to eight years. Mr. Burke timely appealed the
district court’s judgment and sentence.

[¶4] The district court appointed the state public defender to represent Mr. Burke on
appeal, which Mr. Burke later voluntarily dismissed. He then filed a timely motion for
sentence modification or reduction pursuant to W.R.Cr.P. 35(b). He requested the district
court lower his sentence of six to eight years to a sentence of five to eight years, allowing
him earlier eligibility to enter an adult community corrections facility.

[¶5] In support of his motion, Mr. Burke offered supplemental materials to the district
court. He submitted a progress report from his case team leader at the Wyoming Honor
Farm, which showed he had completed several classes while incarcerated. He also
offered letters of support from family members and his own letter. Mr. Burke and his
family argued that he deserved the requested reduction because he had no prior criminal
record, had high character and a good work ethic, had committed to making amends with
his family, and had been a “model prisoner” while incarcerated.

[¶6] The State opposed Mr. Burke’s motion, arguing Mr. Burke had offered nothing
bearing on the specifics of his crime or the factors the district court had considered when
imposing the sentence. Further, the State informed the court that it had contacted one of
the victims, who strongly opposed any reduction of Mr. Burke’s sentence. Without
holding a hearing on Mr. Burke’s motion, the district court issued a written order stating
it had “considered the motion and the file in [the] matter” and was “otherwise well
advised in the premises,” and denied the motion. Mr. Burke timely appealed the district
court’s denial of his motion for sentence reduction or modification.

                                             1
                                STANDARD OF REVIEW

[¶7] “We review the denial of a motion for sentence reduction for an abuse of
discretion.” Blair v. State, 2024 WY 22, ¶ 6, 543 P.3d 919, 921 (Wyo. 2024).

                      The sentencing judge is in the best position to decide if
              a sentence modification is appropriate and is free to accept or
              reject information submitted in support of a sentence
              reduction at its discretion. Our objective on review is not to
              weigh the propriety of the sentence if it falls within the
              sentencing range; we simply consult the information in front
              of the court and consider whether there was a rational basis
              from which the district court could reasonably draw its
              conclusion. Because of the broad discretion given to the
              district court in sentencing, and our significant deference on
              appeal, this Court has demonstrated many times in recent
              years that it is a very difficult bar for an appellant to leap
              seeking to overturn a sentencing decision on an abuse of
              discretion argument.

Id. (quoting Dillard v. State, 2023 WY 73, ¶ 8, 533 P.3d 179, 181 (Wyo. 2023)).

                                      DISCUSSION

[¶8] “We have discretion whether to summarily affirm when a brief is deficient under
the rules of appellate procedure.” Anderle v. State, 2022 WY 161, ¶ 18, 522 P.3d 151,
154 (Wyo. 2022). The State argues we should exercise that discretion because Mr. Burke
did not “provide any cogent argument or citation to legal authority,” as required under
W.R.A.P. 7.01. Although there must be reasonable adherence to the rules, pro se litigants
are afforded some leniency from the stricter standards imposed on attorneys. Anderle,
2022 WY 161, ¶ 18, 522 P.3d at 154. Though Mr. Burke’s brief is deficient in several
respects, “the record is straightforward[] and the applicable standard of review is well
established.” Id. at ¶ 19, 522 P.3d at 154. We therefore exercise our discretion to address
the merits of Mr. Burke’s appeal.

[¶9] Mr. Burke argues the district court abused its discretion “when it did not consider
the motion for sentence reduction on its merits.” The record does not support his
contention. Though the district court’s order did not detail specific aspects of Mr. Burke’s
motion or the State’s response in its ruling, the court indicated that it had “considered the
motion and the file in [the] matter” and that it was “otherwise well advised in the
premises.” We have held W.R.Cr.P. 35(b) does not require a court to demonstrate its
reasoning in denying a motion for sentence reduction. Hurtado v. State, 2023 WY 63,
¶ 8, 531 P.3d 306, 308 (Wyo. 2023). “All that is required is that the sentencing court

                                             2
consider the motion and supporting materials.” Id. (citing Coffey v. State, 2021 WY 21,
¶ 11, 479 P.3d 1263, 1266 (Wyo. 2021)). Mr. Burke makes no argument that the district
court relied on improper evidence or that he had no opportunity to respond to the State’s
arguments. Hurtado, 2023 WY 63 at ¶ 12, 531 P.3d at 309. Likewise, the district court
did not abuse its discretion by denying Mr. Burke’s motion without a hearing, W.R.Cr.P.
35(b), and “[d]efendants simply do not have a right to a sentence reduction, even when
they have performed well while incarcerated.” Anderle, 2022 WY 161, ¶ 30, 522 P.3d at
156 (Kautz, J., specially concurring).

[¶10] Affirmed.

                                           3