Hanson v. State, 4939

• Decision Date: 15 February 1979
• Docket Number: No. 4939,4939
• Citation: 590 P.2d 832
• Parties: Keith Rodney HANSON, Appellant (Defendant below), v. STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff below).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Page 832

590 P.2d 832

Keith Rodney HANSON, Appellant (Defendant below), v. STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff below).

No. 4939.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

Feb. 15, 1979.

Rehearing Denied April 3, 1979.

Edgar Young, Student Intern (argued), Gerald M. Gallivan, Director, Wyoming Defender Aid Program, Laramie, on brief, for appellant.

Barbara Case-Cockreham, Legal Intern (argued), Greg L. Goddard, County and Pros. Atty. for Johnson County, John J. Rooney, Atty. Gen., Gerald A. Stack, Deputy Atty. Gen., on brief, for appellee.

Before RAPER, C. J., McCLINTOCK, THOMAS and ROSE, JJ., and GUTHRIE, J., Retired. ^*

RAPER, Chief Justice.

The appellant-defendant, Keith Hanson, pleaded guilty in the district court to two counts of violating § 6-42, W.S.1957 (§ 6-3-113, W.S.1977), and was sentenced to two concurrent terms of not less than four years and eleven months nor more than five years in the Wyoming State Penitentiary. Defendant appeals from the judgment and sentence contending that he did not receive the benefit of concurrent sentencing which he asserts was promised to him in Wyoming if some later Arizona criminal charges were disposed of by his plea of guilty and the imposition of an appropriate sentence in Arizona. He raises as issues:

"I. All parties concurred in the interstate plea agreement, which should be enforced.

"II. The interstate plea agreement can and should be enforced.

"III. Appellant acted irrevocably to his great detriment in reasonable reliance on the interstate plea agreement.

"IV. An order directing specific performance of the interstate plea agreement is necessary and should be entered by this court."

We will affirm.

The proceedings in this case are not so distressing and confused as presented to us by defendant. He was charged in two informations, joined for disposition, and arraigned on April 6, 1976, at which proceeding he entered pleas of not guilty. On May 17, 1976, a change of plea proceeding was held pursuant to a plea bargain agreement. At this proceeding appellant was reminded ¹ of the nature of the charges against him and their potential penalties, the panoply of constitutional rights he would forego if he pleaded guilty, and that the district court was not bound by any plea negotiations. The defendant confirmed his complete understanding of these matters. The plea bargain was reduced to writing and placed of record. In pertinent part it declares:

"1. The State hereby recommends and agrees:

"(a) That the State shall make no recommendation as to the sentencing of the defendant herein, except that if a sentence of incarceration is imposed, the State shall join in all reasonable efforts to insure the safety and well-being of the defendant, including transfer to an out of state penitentiary. ²

"(b) That if the defendant is incarcerated as provided by the statutes of the State of Wyoming, that he be given credit for any and all time spent in confinement in the Johnson County Jail prior to entry of judgment herein and that any sentences imposed be concurrent." ³

When defendant equivocated about whether or not he understood the judge's comments to him, the district court judge said, "You're going to go to the penitentiary if you enter a guilty plea," whereupon defendant indicated that he fully understood. As a result of extensive discussions and proceedings, the trial judge concluded that defendant had entered his plea of guilty voluntarily, understandingly (including the effect or noneffect of the plea bargaining), and that there was a basis in fact for the charges and the plea. Bond was set at $5,000. Sentencing was scheduled for June 1, 1976.

The defendant did not appear at the June 1, 1976 sentencing, as a result of which a $5,000 bond was forfeited. He was eventually arrested in Arizona in December, 1976, for crimes of forgery and illegal use of credit cards committed in that state. He pleaded guilty to some of those charges pursuant to a plea-bargain agreement which related Only to the Arizona crimes. There appears in the record a letter from the Johnson County Attorney (Wyoming) to the Pima County Attorney (Arizona) proposing that if appellant were sentenced in Arizona to at least nine years in prison, he could then be returned to Wyoming for sentencing and the Wyoming sentence could be imposed concurrent with the Arizona sentence. The letter suggested that this deal was acceptable to the Wyoming district court judge. ⁴ The Arizona superior court judge informed defendant he could not make any guarantees about such an arrangement and sentenced defendant to from nine to fourteen years for his Arizona crimes.

Defendant waived extradition and was returned to Wyoming for sentencing. At the sentencing proceeding held on November 15, 1977, the events which had transpired since appellant's failure to show up at his June 1, 1976 sentencing were discussed at length, including the proposed "deal" to impose the Wyoming sentence to run concurrent with the Arizona sentence. Those discussions became somewhat confused. There was an attempt to reach a compromise on the sentences. Defendant balked at the offer because he felt he might have to spend too much time "inside the wall" of the Arizona Penitentiary if Wyoming had some sort of "hold" on him. The judge then decided to proceed with sentencing because things were "getting rather complicated". The district judge denied defendant's motions to withdraw guilty pleas and his waiver of extradition. Sentences were thereupon imposed.

A plea of guilty is void when induced by promises which deprive it of its voluntariness. Cardenas v. Meacham, Wyo.1976, 545 P.2d 632, 637. In the case now before us, the plea bargain was thoroughly discussed in detail and the appellant was unmistakably informed that the court was not bound by the plea bargain. The guilty plea cannot be said to be based upon "incomprehension or misinterpretation". 545 P.2d at 639-640. In this regard, Rule 15, ⁵ W.R.Cr.P., was meticulously followed. The plea bargain was honored by the district court. ⁶ The events in Arizona all took place after defendant had entered his plea of guilty in Wyoming. The only action on the part of defendant that could be said to have been induced by the later proposal is his waiver...