Belanger v. State
Decision Date | 12 October 2021 |
Docket Number | S-21-0025 |
Citation | 496 P.3d 770 |
Parties | Crystal R. BELANGER, Appellant (Defendant), v. The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff). |
Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Representing Appellant: Crystal R. Belanger, pro se.
Representing Appellee: Bridget Hill, Wyoming Attorney General; Jenny L. Craig, Deputy Attorney General; Joshua C. Eames, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Timothy P. Zintak, Senior Assistant Attorney General.
Before FOX, C.J., and DAVIS, KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, and GRAY, JJ.
[¶1] Crystal R. Belanger received overpayments of supplemental nutrition and child care assistance based on her failure to disclose she and her children were living with Ricky Pollock (Father), the father of two of her three children. Ms. Belanger pled guilty to obtaining property by false pretenses, received a deferred prosecution under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-13-301, and was ordered to pay restitution. She challenges the restitution, contending the evidence does not support the award. She also argues that she should not have been held solely responsible for the restitution contending that Father should have been required to pay a portion. We affirm.
[¶2] We first address a threshold issue, upon which our jurisdiction depends:
1. Is a restitution order issued pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-13-301 appealable?
We then address Ms. Belanger's issues, which we rephrase:
[¶3] Ms. Belanger applied for and received benefits from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the child care assistance program. The State alleged that in her applications between 2014 and 2017, Ms. Belanger falsely stated that she and her children were living with her grandmother, when they were living with Father. If Father's income had been added to the household income for that period, Ms. Belanger would not have qualified for all of the benefits she received. The State charged Ms. Belanger with one count of obtaining property by false pretenses pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-3-407(a)(i) (LexisNexis 2019), repealed by 2020 Wyo. Sess. Laws 289, 293 (ch. 90, § 3). She pled not guilty.
[¶4] Later, Ms. Belanger entered into a plea agreement where she agreed to plead guilty to the charge, and the State agreed to recommend a deferred prosecution under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-13-301. Ms. Belanger reserved the right to challenge the restitution. At her change of plea hearing, Ms. Belanger testified that she contested the Department of Family Services (DFS) overpayment calculations because they included time periods when she was not living with Father.
[¶5] At sentencing, Ms. Belanger's grandmother, Deborah Camara, testified that Ms. Belanger lived with her from November 2015 through April 2017. Ms. Camara admitted that during that period, there were times when Ms. Belanger did not stay with her but testified that Ms. Belanger was at her house "absolutely more" than fifty percent of the time.
[¶6] Michele Rossetti, a DFS supervisor, testified regarding DFS’ investigation and its overpayment calculations. Ms. Rossetti testified that DFS determined that Ms. Belanger resided with Father from October 2014 through April 2017 (time frame). DFS relied on the following evidence in establishing this time frame:
DFS determined that Ms. Belanger lived with Father from October 2014 through April 2017. According to DFS, when Ms. Belanger and Father were living together, Father and Ms. Belanger's incomes were required to be added to determine her benefit eligibility. When DFS recalculated Ms. Belanger's eligibility using both incomes, she was not entitled to all the benefits she received. SNAP and child care assistance overpayments for that interval totaled $14,707.90. In April 2017, Ms. Belanger, with her children, moved from Father's residence to an apartment where they were the sole residents. Without Father's income, Ms. Belanger was eligible for all benefits she was receiving. No overpayment was claimed after her move.
[¶7] The district court found Ms. Rossetti's testimony "credible and persuasive." The district court deferred Ms. Belanger's prosecution under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-13-301, placed her on three years of probation, and in accord with the DFS’ computation, required Ms. Belanger to pay $14,707.90 in restitution. Ms. Belanger appeals.
[¶8] The State asserts that a § 301 deferral order is "not a final, appealable order ... because a defendant has not yet been convicted and the case will be dismissed after a successful completion of deferral probation." At the same time, the State concedes that when a § 301 deferral includes an order of restitution, which is permitted under § 7-13-301(a)(v), that part of the order is a final judgment and may be appealed.
[¶9] This Court's "jurisdiction ‘is limited to appeals from final appealable orders.’ " See Painter v. McGill ex rel. Wyoming Bd. of Med. , 2019 WY 108, ¶ 10, 450 P.3d 1243, 1245 (Wyo. 2019) (quoting Matter of Est. of Inman , 2016 WY 101, ¶ 9, 382 P.3d 67, 69 (Wyo. 2016) ); W.R.A.P. 1.04. The existence of jurisdiction is a question of law which is reviewed de novo. Uden v. State , 2020 WY 109, ¶ 8, 470 P.3d 560, 561 (Wyo. 2020).
Billis v. State , 800 P.2d 401, 403 (Wyo. 1990).
[¶11] Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-13-301 provides:
Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-13-301(a) – (d) (LexisNexis 2021).
[¶12] The State posits that a § 301 deferral order placing a defendant on probation is unappealable because there is no judgment, and the case will be dismissed after the defendant's successful completion of the deferral probation. See Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-13-301(b) ; Billis , 800 P.2d at 422 ) . At the same time, the State concedes...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Borja v. State
...(Wyo. 2021) ). An issue is not necessarily fundamental because it is constitutional, Belanger v. State , 2021 WY 110, ¶ 22 n.1, 496 P.3d 770, 776 n.1 (Wyo. 2021), and Mr. Borja has offered no other reason we should consider his claim to be fundamental. We therefore decline to consider it.[¶......
-
Borja v. State
...(Wyo. 2021)). An issue is not necessarily fundamental because it is constitutional, Belanger v. State, 2021 WY 110, ¶ 22 n.1, 496 P.3d 770, 776 n.1 (Wyo. 2021), and Borja has offered no other reason we should consider his claim to be fundamental. We therefore decline to consider it. [¶25] W......