Anderle v. State
| Citation | 522 P.3d 151 |
| Decision Date | 22 December 2022 |
| Docket Number | S-22-0160 |
| Parties | Joshua James ANDERLE, Appellant (Defendant), v. The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff). |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming |
Representing Appellant: Joshua James Anderle, pro se.
Representing Appellee: Bridget L. 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., KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, GRAY, and FENN, JJ.
[¶1] The district court reduced Joshua James Anderle's sentence for second-degree sexual abuse of a minor by two years following his successful completion of the Youthful Offender Transition Program. In his pro se appeal, Mr. Anderle argues the district court should have reduced his sentence to probation. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.
[¶2] We consider two issues:
[¶3] In November 2020, the State charged Mr. Anderle with two felonies for sexually abusing his niece. In Count I, the State alleged he committed first-degree sexual abuse of a minor under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-314(a)(i) by inflicting sexual intrusion on EL when Mr. Anderle was 16 or older and EL was less than 13 years old. In Count II, the State alleged Mr. Anderle committed second-degree sexual abuse of a minor under § 6-2-315(a)(ii) by engaging in sexual contact with EL.
[¶4] The affidavit of probable cause recounted that detectives interviewed Mr. Anderle in November 2020, after learning he engaged in sexual activity with EL around Thanksgiving 2017, when Mr. Anderle was 17 years old and EL was only five years old. During the interview, Mr. Anderle admitted he allowed EL to masturbate his bare penis with her hand. He further admitted he placed his penis in EL's mouth, and she performed oral sex on him. EL confirmed the same during an interview with the Child Advocacy Project.
[¶5] Mr. Anderle and the State reached a plea agreement in April 2021. Pursuant to the plea agreement, Mr. Anderle would enter an Alford plea1 to the second-degree charge, the State would dismiss the first-degree charge, and the court would sentence Mr. Anderle as it "deem[ed] appropriate and within the confines of the statutory term after hearing arguments[.]" Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-315(b) authorized a sentence of up to 20 years.
[¶6] The court held a combined change of plea and sentencing hearing in June 2021 where it accepted Mr. Anderle's Alford plea and entered a conviction against him for second-degree sexual abuse of a minor. The State recommended sentencing Mr. Anderle to 17 to 20 years based on the seriousness of the crime and the impact it had on EL and her family. EL's mother submitted a victim impact statement describing the emotional impact the crime had on her daughter: EL wrote two suicide notes, gained a significant amount of weight, and had trouble coping. Friends and family vouched for Mr. Anderle's good character, and some suggested EL lied about the sexual abuse. Mr. Anderle asked for mercy.
[¶7] The district court sentenced Mr. Anderle to 8 to 12 years imprisonment and recommended the Wyoming Department of Corrections (DOC) treat him as a Youthful Offender under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-13-1001 et seq.2 The court expressly informed Mr. Anderle it did not have to reduce his sentence if he successfully completed the program. Mr. Anderle began the program in October 2021.
[¶8] In March 2022, in anticipation of Mr. Anderle's successful completion of the program, DOC sent the district court a packet containing three documents: a DOC cover letter, a DOC "letter of progress," and a letter from Mr. Anderle.3
[¶9] The DOC letter addressed Mr. Anderle's "adjustment, demeanor, and progress" in the program and recommended the court reduce his sentence to probation. As set forth in the letter, in phase one, DOC determined Mr. Anderle's overall recidivism risk was low, his sex offender recidivism risk was average, and his primary areas of need were "Substance Abuse and Criminal Attitudes." In phase two, Mr. Anderle participated in "intensive treatment" and assumed various leadership roles. In phase three, Mr. Anderle continued treatment and prepared to transition back into the community. If released, DOC understood he would live with his grandmother outside Lander, Wyoming, work, and give back to the community.
[¶10] In his letter, Mr. Anderle thanked the court for the opportunity to attend the Youthful Offender Transition Program because it opened his eyes to his criminal thinking and taught him how to better manage his emotions. He regretted his actions and wanted to make amends to those he harmed. He explained that, if released, he planned to live with his grandmother, work, attend Narcotics Anonymous (NA) meetings, and help others.
[¶11] The court held a sentence reduction hearing where it heard from the prosecutor, Mr. Anderle, and Mr. Anderle's caseworker. In addition, the prosecutor read a victim impact statement from EL's mother.
[¶12] Though his office rarely did so, the prosecutor disagreed with DOC's probation recommendation because Mr. Anderle's crime was "unusual" and "disturbing." He recommended the court reduce Mr. Anderle's sentence by a couple years to recognize his accomplishments in the program.
[¶13] In her victim impact statement, EL's mother stated her belief that reducing Mr. Anderle's sentence to probation would be "extremely detrimental for [EL's] mental and physical health." EL was "dealing with a great deal of trauma and sadness" due to the crime; "experiencing a huge increase in her epilepsy and seizures" due to stress; and had "just recently been able to go out in the community" to participate in ordinary activities such as shopping and going to the movies. EL's mother worried this progress would be lost if EL feared seeing Mr. Anderle in their small town. She requested the court, at the very least, keep two years on Mr. Anderle's sentence so her family could tie up loose ends and move.
[¶14] In addressing the court, Mr. Anderle reiterated much of what he said in his letter: the program opened his eyes to how many people he harmed while engaged in criminal activity, he wanted to right those wrongs, he assumed a leadership position in the program, and he hoped to continue helping others on release. Mr. Anderle's caseworker addressed Mr. Anderle's accomplishments in the program and asserted he had a low risk of recidivism for a sexual offense. She also expressed concern that placing Mr. Anderle with the general prison population would teach him to reoffend.
[¶15] At the end of the hearing, the court stated it was undecided, could not promise anything, and would give the matter "deep consideration[.]" In an effort to be candid with Mr. Anderle, the court noted its concern about the impact a sentence reduction to probation would have on EL and her mother.
[¶16] In its written order, the district court summarized the procedural history and materials it considered to reach its decision. Then, "[b]ased upon the totality of factors which the [c]ourt [ ] reviewed and considered," it reduced Mr. Anderle's sentence by two years. This timely appeal followed.
[¶17] The State argues we should summarily affirm because Mr. Anderle did not comply with the rules for an appellant's brief under W.R.A.P. 7.01. The State more specifically notes his brief does not contain the required tables of contents and authorities, identify a standard of review, or include an argument with citations to the record and relevant authorities. See W.R.A.P. 7.01.
[¶18] Young v. State , 2002 WY 68, ¶ 9, 46 P.3d 295, 297 (Wyo. 2002) (citation omitted). Failure to comply with W.R.A.P. 7.01 is grounds "for such action as [we] deem[ ] appropriate, including but not limited to: refusal to consider the [appellant's] contentions ... and affirmance." W.R.A.P. 1.03(a). We have discretion whether to summarily affirm when a brief is deficient under the rules of appellate procedure. Cor v. Sinclair Servs. Co. , 2017 WY 116, ¶ 4, 402 P.3d 992, 994 (Wyo. 2017) (citation omitted).
[¶19] Mr. Anderle submitted his pro se brief on a Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals form entitled "Appellant's Combined Opening Brief and Application for a Certificate of Appealability." There is no question his brief is deficient under W.R.A.P. 7.01 in certain respects. However, his argument is plain, the record is straightforward, and the applicable standard of review is well established. We therefore exercise our discretion to address his appeal on the merits. See Young , ¶¶ 8–9, 46 P.3d at 297 ().
[¶20] The Youthful Offender Transition Program statute provides that "[t]he sentencing court may reduce the sentence of any convicted felon who": (i) the sentencing court recommends for the program, (ii) DOC certifies "as having successfully completed" the program, and (iii) applies for a sentence reduction within one year after beginning to serve his sentence. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-13-1002(a). See also Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-13-1001(a)(iii) (LexisNexis 2021) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial