Court Opinion

ID: 9789891
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:43:33.688261+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:24.983721
License: Public Domain

CARDINE, Justice,
dissenting, with whom ROSE, Justice, joins.
I dissent.
We are reluctant to interfere in the sentencing process, and that is as it should be. The sentencing judge has presided at the trial, observed the witnesses, has a feel for the magnitude of the incident and the parties before him, and is in the best position to determine an appropriate disposition. However to say that we will never review a sentence would be unreasonable, for surely on some occasion a sentence might be improper. Thus, I agree with the majority, that where there has been an abuse of discretion in imposing sentence, the sentence should be modified. In this case I would find an abuse of discretion.
At the time of this incident, appellant was twenty years of age. He was a scholarship, honor student at Sheridan College enrolled in courses in physics, introduction to mining, metal, and welding. His only prior involvement with the law was a traffic citation. On the night in question, at 2:00 a.m., he was hitchhiking home to Story, Wyoming. He and a friend, Jones, were given a ride by the undercover agents. It was a February night, very cold, and the roads were slick. Appellant had no marijuana with him, was not attempting to sell marijuana, had not solicited anyone for the sale of marijuana, and there is no evidence that he had ever been involved in such activities. There was no dispute in the testimony over who first brought up the question of drugs. The agents were in Sheridan for the sole and express purpose of purchasing drugs. Even they would not have us believe that they did not attempt to accomplish their purpose by asking others whether they had drugs for sale. In this case, taking the evidence most favorable to the prosecution, it is clear that the agents first inquired of Jones where they could obtain drugs. At trial, their position was that although Wright was in the car, they *1115were not talking to Wright. Thus, when Wright became involved in the conversation and said he had some marijuana, they took the position that, as between Wright and Agent Young, Wright first brought up the subject. I quote from the majority opinion:
“Witness Miller testified:
“ ‘Q. As between Agent Young and Mr. Wright, who was the individual that first brought up purchasing marijuana?
‘“A. Mr. Wright.’”1 (Emphasis added.)
Officer Miller further testified as follows:
“Q. And what did Mr. Wright, the defendant, say?
“A. He stated that he had — it was a statement. He just said during the conversation of Jones and myself — he just spoke out and said that he had some marijuana at his house.
sft ⅜ jfc ⅜: ⅜ *
“Q. What did he advise you?
“A. He said he had a baggy of his own personal stash and that he would give me half of it.”
Thus, among all of the occupants in the car, the agents first mentioned that subject; but, as between Agent Young and Wright, Wright first mentioned the subject of marijuana.
Subsequently the officers continued to contact Jones asking if he would sell them some marijuana. On both occasions, Jones said he did not have any, and they finally left him alone.
On the evidence presented, the jury could find Grant Wright guilty of the crime charged, “delivery” of a controlled substance. But, “delivery” may be by a “dealer” 2 or by a young boy who gives to another one-half of a small amount of marijuana which he possesses. Grant Wright admitted the delivery, but felt that, upon the evidence, the jury could find that he was entrapped by the officers. The jury found there was no entrapment. I have no problem with that finding, nor do I believe it was necessary to find that anyone lied to arrive at that result under the law.
It is distressing that we are caught up in a game of semantics involving “delivery,” “dealing,” and who said what first. Our concern ought to be now that upon the undisputed evidence and record before us a young boy, twenty years of age with no prior criminal record, attending junior college and doing well, is to serve a term of two to four years in the state penitentiary over this incident. It is clear from the record that Wright was not a dealer in drugs nor engaged in the business. He did not appear on the list of persons targeted in this drug investigation. It was just happenstance that he received a ride from two undercover officers while hitchhiking home at 2:00 a.m. in the morning. Quoting again the evidence most favorable to the prosecution, Officer Miller testified:
“Q. Did your team have a target list?
“A. We had some people that we knew that were in this area.
[[Image here]]
“Q. Grant Wright was not one of those persons and David Jones was not one of those persons?
“A. No, sir.
“Q. Then at no time did anyone supply you with the name of Grant Wright or David Jones as drug dealers?
“A. No, sir.
* * * * sje sfs
“Q. The first time you had ever heard of them was on February 23 about 2:10 in the morning?
“A. That’s correct.
“Q. You picked them up. Then previous to the time that you met Grant Wright you had no evidence or even a suspicion that he was in anyway [sic] involved in any drug dealings?
“A. No, sir. That’s correct.
“Q. That’s — and since that time you have come up with nothing else. May I *1116assume you have come up with nothing else concerning Grant Wright and drugs?
“A. No, I haven’t heard anything.”
The majority states that the same crime can result in different sentences, and I agree. Thus, two young men can each be involved in the delivery of a controlled substance. One of them may be engaged in the business of selling for profit, actively over a long period of time. Another may have succumbed to the desire to please one who had done a favor or represented himself as a friend and given half of what he possessed in the way of a small packet of marijuana just because of this urging. The former case, perhaps, should carry a prison sentence, while the latter might properly be disposed of with probation.
It was suggested that perhaps appellant was not remorseful. He should be, for without question he possessed marijuana contrary to law. We are all saddened when gifted athletes, performers, and scholars surrender a promising future or what otherwise might be a brillant career to drugs. Some overcome the problem. Some never do. Thus, appellant should be aware that the effort mounted to deal with the drug problem is beneficial and one generally approved by society. The trial judge noted the potential for correction of the sentence within 120 days. Justice Rose in his dissent concludes that the trial court may not, once Grant Wright is placed in the penitentiary, change his sentence to probation. I agree. Therefore, I am of the opinion the sentence of two to four years in the state penitentiary is unduly harsh considering the crime and the circumstances involved; such sentence was an abuse of discretion, and should be modified.

. See majority opinion, page 1096, quote from transcript of testimony.

. The term “dealer in drugs” as used herein refers to one regularly engaged in selling drugs as opposed to the single instance described.