Keller v. State, No. 86-54
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming |
| Writing for the Court | Before THOMAS; CARDINE |
| Citation | 723 P.2d 1244 |
| Parties | Michael J. KELLER, Appellant (Defendant), v. The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff). |
| Docket Number | No. 86-54 |
| Decision Date | 27 August 1986 |
Page 1244
v.
The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff).
Page 1245
Leonard Munker, State Public Defender, Gerald M. Gallivan, Director, argued, Wyoming Defender Aid Program, and Megan Olson, Student Intern, for appellant.
A.G. McClintock, Atty. Gen., Gerald A. Stack, Deputy Atty. Gen., John W. Renneisen, S. Asst. Atty. Gen., Kevin Saxby, Student Intern, and Steven E. Sumida, argued, Student Intern, for appellee.
Before THOMAS, C.J., and BROWN, CARDINE, URBIGKIT and MACY, JJ.
CARDINE, Justice.
Appellant Michael J. Keller appeals from the denial of his motion to correct sentence.
The issue in this appeal is whether Rule 15(c), W.R.Cr.P., requires a trial judge to advise a defendant that restitution may be imposed in sentencing as an element of the maximum possible penalty.
We reverse.
Keller was arraigned on November 30, 1984, on a charge of destruction of property in violation of § 6-3-201, W.S.1977. At the arraignment, the trial judge informed Keller of the charge and the possible penalty as follows:
"THE COURT: So, to summarize, Mr. Keller, you have been charged with the crime of destruction of property for which the possible penalty is not more than five years in the Wyoming State Penitentiary, a fine of not more than $5,000 or both. So I must be sure that you understand the charge and the possible penalty. With what have you been charged?
"DEFENDANT: I have been charged with the destruction of property, sir.
"THE COURT: What is the possible penalty for that?
"DEFENDANT: Not more than five years, sir.
"THE COURT: Anything else?
"DEFENDANT: And not more than $5,000 fine, sir.
"THE COURT: Do you have any questions about the charge and possible penalty? Do you have any questions?
"DEFENDANT: No, Your Honor.
Page 1246
"THE COURT: Do you understand the charge against you?
"DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor."
Keller pled not guilty.
On March 7, 1985, a change-of-plea hearing was held, and Keller changed his plea to nolo contendere. The possible penalty was not discussed at that hearing. The court did refer to the previous arraignment:
"Mr. Keller, do you admit that you are one and the same Michael J. Keller who was arraigned in this Court on November 30, 1984, and at that time the charges against you and your constitutional rights were explained to you?
"THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor."
At the hearing the prosecution introduced testimony as to the amount of damage caused, but restitution was not specifically discussed. After a presentence investigation, Keller was sentenced on April 30, 1985, to a term of not less than 18 months nor more than three years. In addition, he was ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $7,928.36.
Keller filed a motion to delete the order of restitution based on the theory that Rule 15(c), W.R.Cr.P., required that he be informed that payment of restitution might be part of his maximum possible sentence. A hearing was held on January 14, 1986. The judge found that Keller had been aware of the possibility of restitution, and the failure to so advise him was harmless error. The motion was denied, and this appeal ensued.
Rule 15(c), W.R.Cr.P., provides in pertinent part:
"Before accepting a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, the court must address the defendant personally in open court and inform him of, and determine that he understands, * * * [t]he nature of the charge to which the plea is offered, the mandatory minimum penalty provided by law, if any, and the maximum possible penalty provided by law."
The purpose of the rule is to allow the judge to determine that the defendant entered the plea voluntarily and with an understanding of the consequences. Hoggatt v. State, Wyo., 606 P.2d 718 (1980); Cardenas v. Meacham, Wyo., 545 P.2d 632 (1976). The question here is whether the possibility of restitution is part of the maximum possible penalty.
The State argues that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Duffy v. State, 87-160
...of a plea of guilty and to avoid questions on post-conviction relief. Gist v. State, 768 P.2d 1054 (Wyo.1989). See Keller v. State, 723 P.2d 1244 (Wyo.1986); Crawford v. State, 701 P.2d 1150 (Wyo.1985). While we have required strict compliance with the provisions of Rule 15, W.R.Cr.P., we h......
-
Martin v. State, 88-155
...within the criminal context, is the same as a plea of guilty. State v. Steele, 620 P.2d 1026 (Wyo.1980); followed in Keller v. State, 723 P.2d 1244 (Wyo.1986). If the plea of nolo contendere is treated as the substantial equivalent of a plea of guilty, it must follow that the effect of that......
-
Stephens v. State, 86-241
...that the behavior of the victim was consistent with that generally displayed by victims of sexual assaults. Griego; Keller v. State, 723 P.2d 1244 (Wyo.1986); Scadden; Lessard. Accord, Stewart. Cf. Brown, 736 P.2d With respect to the claim that the district court erred in permitting the min......
-
State v. Kealoha, SCWC-14-0001195
...of which a defendant should be informed pursuant to Idaho Criminal Rule 11(c) before his guilty plea is accepted."); Keller v. State, 723 P.2d 1244, 1246–47 (Wyo. 1986) ("From the viewpoint of a defendant in a criminal trial, payment of restitution is as much a penalty as payment of a fine.......
-
Duffy v. State, 87-160
...of a plea of guilty and to avoid questions on post-conviction relief. Gist v. State, 768 P.2d 1054 (Wyo.1989). See Keller v. State, 723 P.2d 1244 (Wyo.1986); Crawford v. State, 701 P.2d 1150 (Wyo.1985). While we have required strict compliance with the provisions of Rule 15, W.R.Cr.P., we h......
-
Martin v. State, 88-155
...within the criminal context, is the same as a plea of guilty. State v. Steele, 620 P.2d 1026 (Wyo.1980); followed in Keller v. State, 723 P.2d 1244 (Wyo.1986). If the plea of nolo contendere is treated as the substantial equivalent of a plea of guilty, it must follow that the effect of that......
-
Stephens v. State, 86-241
...that the behavior of the victim was consistent with that generally displayed by victims of sexual assaults. Griego; Keller v. State, 723 P.2d 1244 (Wyo.1986); Scadden; Lessard. Accord, Stewart. Cf. Brown, 736 P.2d With respect to the claim that the district court erred in permitting the min......
-
State v. Kealoha, SCWC-14-0001195
...of which a defendant should be informed pursuant to Idaho Criminal Rule 11(c) before his guilty plea is accepted."); Keller v. State, 723 P.2d 1244, 1246–47 (Wyo. 1986) ("From the viewpoint of a defendant in a criminal trial, payment of restitution is as much a penalty as payment of a fine.......