Crouse v. State

• Decision Date: 15 November 2017
• Docket Number: S-17-0002
• Citation: 405 P.3d 216
• Parties: Donald Alan CROUSE, Appellant (Defendant), v. The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

405 P.3d 216

Donald Alan CROUSE, Appellant (Defendant),

v.The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff).

S-17-0002

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

November 15, 2017

Representing Appellant: Office of the State Public Defender: Diane M. Lozano, State Public Defender; Tina N. Olson, Chief Appellate Counsel.

Representing Appellee: Peter K. Michael, Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; James M. Causey, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Christyne M. Martens, Senior Assistant Attorney General.

Before BURKE, C.J., and HILL, DAVIS, FOX, and KAUTZ, JJ.

BURKE, Chief Justice.

[¶1] Appellant, Donald Crouse, challenges an order of the district court revoking his probation and reinstating the original prison sentence. He claims the State failed to prove that the alleged violation was willful. He further claims that the district court, in reaching its decision, improperly relied upon allegations of other probation violations that were not charged or proven. We affirm.

ISSUES

[¶2] Appellant presents two issues, which we reword for clarification:

1. Did the district court abuse its discretion in revoking Appellant's probation and reinstating the original prison sentence?

2. Did the district court err by relying on improper information to reach its decision?

FACTS

[¶3] Pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant entered a no contest plea to one count of kidnapping.¹ He was sentenced to three to six years of imprisonment, but that was suspended in favor of three years of probation. As a condition of his probation, Appellant was required to "submit himself to a full psychiatric evaluation with continued monitoring for an[y] prescribed medications as recommended in the [pre-sentence investigation report] ... [and] take medications as prescribed." Another condition prohibited Appellant from having any contact with the kidnapping victim, his brother, or his parents, who lived in the same neighborhood as Appellant. Appellant was also ordered to "abide by other conditions set forth by his supervising Probation Agent." Appellant was released on probation on May 12, 2016.

[¶4] As detailed below, on more than one occasion, Appellant's probation officer discussed with Appellant the probation condition of completing a psychiatric evaluation. Appellant made an appointment at a mental health clinic, and went to the clinic on the scheduled date. However, he left the clinic without completing the evaluation or making another appointment. On July 1, 2016, the State filed a petition to revoke his probation, asserting that Appellant had violated a probation condition by failing to obtain the required psychiatric evaluation. At the initial hearing on the revocation petition, Appellant was advised of his rights, and informed of the allegations contained in the petition. Appellant denied the allegations. The district court then addressed the issue of bond.

[¶5] The prosecutor recommended a relatively high bond. In making that recommendation, the prosecutor noted that Appellant lived "three doors" away from the victim's home and, on the day before being arrested for the alleged probation violation, had been observed "on the [victim's] property, looking into a trailer that was attached to a truck, looking around the truck, and standing and looking at the [victim's] home." The prosecutor specified that the State was not alleging those actions were a probation violation, because Appellant had not actually contacted the victim or his family. However, based on Appellant's alleged failure to obtain a psychiatric evaluation as ordered, and on his "proximity to the victim," the State recommended a $60,000 bond. Defense counsel urged the court to release Appellant on his own recognizance. He acknowledged that Appellant was "not terribly diligent" about completing his psychiatric evaluation, but claimed that there was no "knowing, intentional violation of probation." The district court considered the arguments, and emphasized the importance of Appellant obtaining a psychiatric evaluation. It ruled that, "for the safety [of] the community as well as [Appellant's] safety," bond would be set at $60,000.

[¶6] The revocation hearing was held on September 19, 2016. During the hearing, Appellant's probation officer testified that he met with Appellant on May 19, 2016, shortly after his sentencing. The officer recalled discussing the conditions of Appellant's probation and, specifically, the condition requiring Appellant to obtain a psychiatric evaluation. The officer testified that Appellant indicated he understood the condition. He met with Appellant again on May 31, 2016, and reminded him of the need to complete a psychiatric evaluation. The officer specified that Appellant needed to set up an appointment, and call the officer the following day to confirm that he had done so. Appellant did not make that call. However, when the probation officer met with Appellant on June 24, 2016, Appellant informed the officer that he had made a June 27, 2016, appointment for a psychiatric evaluation at High Country Behavioral Health. The probation officer testified that he later learned Appellant went to the clinic on the scheduled day, but left without completing the evaluation. Appellant told the officer that he "just kind of started zoning out when he was in the meeting and then eventually he just got up and left." He testified that, to his knowledge, Appellant had not obtained the required psychiatric evaluation.

[¶7] A clinical therapist at High Country Behavioral Health also testified. She stated that Appellant reported to the clinic on the scheduled day. He was given an intake packet, consisting of approximately forty pages. A short time later, she noticed that Appellant "had the paperwork spread out across, probably, four or five chairs, [and] had two or three toothbrushes out on the chairs also." When she invited Appellant into her office, he gathered the paperwork and put the toothbrushes into his pocket. In her office, she asked why he was there. He replied, "It's somebody's sick idea of a joke." When she asked him a question about the paperwork, he "put his head to one side, closed his eyes, kind of periodically closed and opened them."

This went on for about ten minutes until Appellant lifted his head and told her he was "not going to do this and walked out of the office." She further testified that Appellant had not completed a psychiatric evaluation at High Country Behavioral Health. Appellant did not testify at the hearing. He did not call any witnesses on his behalf.

[¶8] The district court found that the State had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Appellant had violated a condition of his probation by failing to obtain a psychiatric evaluation. The district court then proceeded to consider an appropriate sanction for the violation. The prosecutor urged the district court to revoke Appellant's probation and reinstate the sentence of three to six years imprisonment. Defense counsel contended that Appellant was now prepared to complete his psychiatric evaluation, and intended to do so. On that basis, he requested that the district court place Appellant on probation once again. The district court decided to revoke Appellant's probation and to reimpose the original prison sentence. Appellant challenges that decision in this appeal.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[¶9] "A district court's decision to revoke probation and impose a sentence is discretionary, and we will not interfere with the ruling unless the record shows a clear abuse of discretion." Miller v. State, 2015 WY 72, ¶ 10, 350 P.3d 742, 745 (Wyo. 2015) (citing Mapp v. State, 929 P.2d 1222, 1225 (Wyo. 1996) ). We apply that standard of review with considerable deference:

Because the trial court heard and weighed the evidence, assessed witness credibility, and made the necessary inferences and deductions from the evidence, the trial court's factual findings are not disturbed on appeal unless they are clearly erroneous, and the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the trial court's determination.

Miller, ¶ 11, 350 P.3d at 746. See also Robinson v. State, 2016 WY 90, ¶ 44, 378 P.3d 599, 610 (Wyo. 2016) ("[A]ll that is necessary to uphold a district court's decision to revoke probation is evidence that it made a conscientious judgment, after hearing the facts, that the defendant willfully violated a condition of his probation.").

DISCUSSION

[¶10] A helpful first step in evaluating Appellant's first issue is to review some aspects of the probation revocation process. Probation revocation is governed by W.R.Cr.P. 39. The process involves two steps. In the first part, the adjudicatory phase, the question is whether the probationer violated a condition of his probation. Mapp, 929 P.2d at 1226. If a violation is found, then the district court proceeds to the second part, the dispositional phase, in which the court must "determine the appropriate consequences of the probationer's violation." Id. In making that determination, "the district court must deliberate not only upon the violation, but also the reasons the conditions were originally imposed and the circumstances surrounding the violation." Id. The question of whether the probation violation was willful is addressed in the second part, the dispositional phase. Sinning v. State, 2007 WY 193, ¶ 10, 172 P.3d 388, 390 (Wyo. 2007).

[¶11] Appellant's arguments in this appeal are sometimes confusing because they fail to recognize the distinction between the two phases of the probation revocation process. However, it is undisputed that Appellant did not complete his psychiatric evaluation. This supports the district court's ruling in the adjudicatory phase that Appellant had violated a condition of his probation.

[¶12] Relying on Forbes v. State, 2009 WY 146, ¶ 8, 220 P.3d 510, 513 (Wyo. 2009), Appellant correctly points out that, ordinarily, a probation violation justifies revocation only if the violation was willful. Willfully means "intentionally,...