Cooper v. State, S-18-0113
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming |
Citation | 431 P.3d 1126 |
Docket Number | S-18-0113 |
Parties | Timothy Owen COOPER, Appellant (Defendant), v. The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff). |
Decision Date | 12 December 2018 |
431 P.3d 1126
Timothy Owen COOPER, Appellant (Defendant),
v.
The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff).
S-18-0113
Supreme Court of Wyoming.
December 12, 2018
Representing Appellant: Timothy Owen Cooper, pro se.
Representing Appellee: Peter K. Michael, Attorney General; Christyne M. Martens, Deputy Attorney General; Caitlin F. Harper, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Samuel L. Williams, Assistant Attorney General.
Before DAVIS, C.J., and FOX, KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, and GRAY, JJ.
GRAY, Justice.
ISSUES
[¶ 2] Mr. Cooper raises two issues which we restate as:
I. Does the Addicted Offender Accountability Act require the release of a qualified offender after he completes treatment while serving a prison sentence?
II. Did the district court abuse its discretion when it denied Mr. Cooper’s motion for sentence reduction?
FACTS
[¶ 3] In 2014, Mr. Cooper was charged with felony possession of a controlled substance in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 35-7-1031(c)(ii) (LexisNexis 2013). The district court released him on bond after his initial appearance. On two separate occasions between the initial appearance and sentencing, the State sought to revoke Mr. Cooper’s bond. The first petition to revoke bond, based on failure to check in and provide a urine analysis, was pending at the time of the change of plea hearing. At that hearing, Mr. Cooper pled "no contest" to one count of felony possession of methamphetamine. The district court accepted Mr. Cooper’s plea and continued his bond. The second petition to revoke Mr. Cooper’s bond was based on Mr. Cooper’s alleged use of methamphetamine and marijuana in violation of the terms of his bond. The district court revoked the bond. On February 20, 2015, the district court sentenced Mr. Cooper to five to seven years’ incarceration. Finding Mr. Cooper a qualified offender under Wyoming’s Addicted Offender Accountability Act (AOAA or "the Act"), Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 7-13-1301 et seq. (LexisNexis 2013), the court suspended his sentence in favor of a split sentence of 180 days in jail, subject to early release upon acceptance into an inpatient treatment facility, followed by a period of five years of probation. It appears that Mr. Cooper was released from jail early and successfully completed inpatient treatment.
[¶ 4] In October of 2016, the State sought to revoke Mr. Cooper’s probation alleging failure to complete aftercare treatment, failure to keep two office visits with his probation officer, and failure to comply with monetary obligations in the sentence and probation order. Mr. Cooper admitted that he failed to complete aftercare treatment and to missing the office visits. The State withdrew the remaining allegation. The district court revoked Mr. Cooper’s probation and reinstated his original sentence. The court again suspended the sentence in favor of another five-year term of probation. The court again found Mr. Cooper was a qualified offender under the AOAA and again
[431 P.3d 1128
required him to complete inpatient treatment as a condition of probation.
[¶ 6] Mr. Cooper moved for a Rule 35 reduction in sentence within one year of its imposition. W.R.Cr.P. 35(b). The district court denied Mr. Cooper’s Rule 35 motion stating that the "court has considered the motion and other submittals in the court file, including the Presentence Investigation Report, and the court can find no good reason to reduce or modify the sentence previously imposed." Mr. Cooper filed a timely notice of appeal.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[¶ 7] "[T]he interpretation and application of the AOAA ... is a question of law that we review de novo. " Janpol v. State , 2008 WY 21, ¶ 16, 178 P.3d 396, 403 (Wyo. 2008) (citing Alcorn v. Sauer Drilling Co. , 2006 WY 15, ¶ 6, 126 P.3d 924, 925 (Wyo. 2006) ; Reiter v. State , 2001 WY 116, ¶ 7, 36 P.3d 586, 589 (Wyo. 2001) ), abrogated on other grounds by Shull v. State , 2017 WY 14, 388 P.3d 763 (Wyo. 2017). A denial of a motion for sentence reduction is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Boucher v. State , 2012 WY 145, ¶ 6, 288 P.3d 427, 429 (Wyo. 2012).
DISCUSSION
[¶ 8] While Mr. Cooper’s...
To continue reading
Request your trial