Pettus v. State

• Citation: 2022 WY 126
• Decision Date: 11 October 2022
• Docket Number: S-22-0045
• Parties: SEAN LOGAN PETTUS, Appellant (Defendant), v. THE STATE OF WYOMING, Appellee (Plaintiff).
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming

2022 WY 126

SEAN LOGAN PETTUS, Appellant (Defendant), v. THE STATE OF WYOMING, Appellee (Plaintiff).

No. S-22-0045

Supreme Court of Wyoming

October 11, 2022

Appeal from the District Court of Goshen County The Honorable Patrick W. Korell, Judge

Representing Appellant:

Office of Public Defender: Diane M. Lozano, State Public Defender Kirk A. Morgan, Chief Appellate Counsel; Robin S. Cooper Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel.

Representing Appellee:

Bridget L. Hill, 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 KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, GRAY, and FENN, JJ.

FENN JUSTICE

[¶1] Sean Pettus pled no contest to second-degree murder and guilty to one count of first-degree arson, one count of felony theft, and two counts of felony burglary. He filed a presentence motion to withdraw his no-contest plea, which was denied. He argues the district court abused its discretion when it denied his motion. We affirm.

ISSUE

[¶2] The dispositive issue is whether the district court abused its discretion when it denied Mr. Pettus's pre-sentence motion to withdraw his no-contest plea.

FACTS

[¶3] On April 20, 2021, the Torrington Police Department investigated a fire at a commercial building occupied by a hair salon and a tattoo parlor. Sean Pettus operated the tattoo parlor. The fire caused significant damage to both halves of the building. The Fire Marshall determined the fire was set in the hair salon, and it appeared an accelerant had been used. The police received a report that Mr. Pettus went to the Smoker Friendly convenience store shortly after the fire had started where he stole a bottle of whiskey and left behind a sweatshirt that smelled strongly of gasoline. Mr Pettus then stole a 2007 Ford Taurus, which had been left running a short distance away from the Smoker Friendly. Officers later found Mr. Pettus inside the stolen vehicle. While being booked into the jail, officers discovered several handfuls of loose change in his pants pockets, which Mr. Pettus admitted he took from the car. The State initially charged Mr. Pettus with one count of first-degree arson and one count of felony theft.

[¶4] While investigating the fire, officers learned Mr. Pettus's significant other, Madison Cook, was missing, and no one had seen or heard from her since April 18, 2021. Officers went to the apartment where Mr. Pettus and Ms. Cook were known to reside. When no one answered the door, the officers entered the apartment out of concern for Ms. Cook's safety. The officers discovered Ms. Cook was deceased. The Goshen County Coroner ruled Ms. Cook's death a homicide, and the cause of death was preliminarily determined to be a combination of multiple stab wounds and asphyxiation. The autopsy also showed blunt-force trauma to Ms. Cook's right eye and a subdural hematoma on the upper portion of her brain, which was consistent with trauma to the back of her head. The State subsequently filed an Amended Information, charging Mr. Pettus with a total of five counts: 1) murder in the first degree; 2) first-degree arson; 3) felony theft; 4) burglary, relating to the arson charge; and 5) burglary, relating to the theft charge.

[¶5] Defense counsel filed a motion for a competency evaluation before Mr. Pettus was arraigned. No action had been taken on the motion for a competency evaluation prior to his arraignment. At the arraignment, the district court advised Mr. Pettus about his constitutional and statutory rights, his presumption of innocence, the pleas that were available to him, and the consequences of a felony conviction. The district court also advised Mr. Pettus about the consequences of entering a guilty or no-contest plea:

If today or at any time during these proceedings you decide to enter a guilty plea or even a no contest plea then there is no trial in this matter and all of those rights that I just spoke to you about are waived and the only issue left for this court to determine is an appropriate sentence.

The district court reviewed the Amended Information with Mr. Pettus and informed him about the possible penalties for each charge. Before Mr. Pettus entered a plea, defense counsel reminded the district court there was a pending motion for a competency evaluation. The district court entered an order requiring a competency evaluation.

[¶6] The competency evaluation was completed and filed with the court. The evaluator opined Mr. Pettus was feigning symptoms of mental illness and malingering in the hope it would have a positive impact on his case. The evaluator diagnosed Mr. Pettus with major depressive disorder, a severe substance use disorder, and malingering. She opined Mr. Pettus was competent to proceed even though he had a serious mental illness. Defense counsel requested a second evaluation, and the district court entered an order granting that request. Mr. Pettus subsequently withdrew his request for a second competency evaluation, and the State and Mr. Pettus accepted the findings of the first evaluation. After determining Mr. Pettus was competent to proceed, the district court quashed the order requiring the second evaluation.

[¶7] The district court held a continued arraignment and a change of plea hearing on August 23, 2021. At this hearing, the district court reminded Mr. Pettus of what occurred at his arraignment, and it asked Mr. Pettus if he wanted to go over everything again. Mr. Pettus replied no. Despite this response, the district court again advised Mr. Pettus about his rights. Mr. Pettus indicated he did not have any questions about his rights. The district court asked Mr. Pettus whether he had had adequate time to consult with his attorneys and if he was satisfied with their representation. Mr. Pettus answered yes to both questions. The district court then engaged in the following colloquy with Mr. Pettus:

THE COURT: Now, Mr. Pettus, I understand you may have entered into a plea agreement or want to enter into a plea agreement. Is that your understanding?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Pettus, importantly, has anybody forced or threatened you in any way to get you to plead a certain way today?

THE DEFENDANT: No.

THE COURT: Has anybody made any promises or inducements to get you to plead a certain way today, other than this plea agreement that I am about to hear?

THE DEFENDANT: No.

THE COURT: Mr. Pettus, I need to have you make eye contact with me for a moment. Do you know of any reason at all that this court should not proceed with this change of plea hearing today?

THE DEFENDANT: No.

THE COURT: Very good.

The State set forth the details of the plea agreement, and defense counsel confirmed the State accurately recited its terms. The district court advised Mr. Pettus as follows:

[THE COURT] Mr. Pettus, I want to understand this plea agreement the same way. This is an important stage of these proceedings. This plea agreement calls for you to plead no contest to an amended charge in Count I, from first degree to second degree murder. The state would rely upon an affidavit of probable cause, which has been provided to you, to support the facts that the state believes to be true in this matter and you would agree by a no contest plea not to contest those facts. I would ask you whether the state can prove those facts or present that and whether that would be enough to convict you beyond a reasonable doubt, but I won't ask you about any statements in Count I.

Count II, III, IV and V, you would agree to plead guilty to and, Mr. Pettus, I would have to hear from you what happened to cause you to plead guilty to Counts II, III, IV and V. As part of this plea agreement, Mr. Pettus, this is provided under Rule 11 and that particular rule is 11(e)(B), and it talks about plea agreement procedures. Plea agreements "In General. The attorney for the state and the attorney for the defendant or the defendant when acting pro se," meaning self-represented, "may engage in discussions with a view toward reaching an agreement that, upon the entering of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere" -- no contest - "to a charged offense or to a lesser related offense, the attorney for the state will do any of the following:"

"(B) Make a recommendation, or agree not to oppose the defendant's request, for a particular sentence, with the understanding that such recommendation or request shall not be binding upon the court." The state can also "Agree not to prosecute other crimes" or the court can hear and the parties can "Agree that a specific sentence is the appropriate disposition of this case."

The rule then goes on to provide that the plea agreement has to be fully disclosed to the court and if the court accepts the plea agreement I am to inform you that the judgment and sentence will embody the terms and dispositions required in the agreement. The court can reject the agreement. The court can also upon entry of a plea give you a different sentence should the court deem appropriate.

Mr. Pettus, I told you that courts hear plea agreements all the time and I will, certainly, strongly consider a plea agreement, but the court reserves the right to give you any sentence the court deems appropriate. Do you understand?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: And Count I is a significant reduction -- or a reduction, I should say, from a first degree murder charge to a second degree so you get the benefit of that under the plea agreement. The plea agreement calls for you to serve a life sentence. The plea agreement calls for the state to recommend consecutive sentences and you agree that that is appropriate. And, Mr. Pettus, any deficiencies or issues that have arisen to date that could cause an appeal,

...