State v. Reisch, 3985
| Decision Date | 28 December 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 3985,3985 |
| Citation | 491 P.2d 1254 |
| Parties | The STATE of Wyoming, Plaintiff, v. Floyd REISCH, Jr., Defendant. |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
James N. Wolfe, County and Pros. Atty., Sheridan, for plaintiff.
Burgess, Kennedy & Davis, and Russel P. Steele, Sheridan, for degendant.
Before McINTYRE, C. J., and PARKER and McEWAN, JJ.
The occurrences leading up to the Sheridan County Attorney's bill of exceptions under the provisions of §§ 7-288-7-291, W.S.1957, had their genesis in Floyd Reisch, Jr's. plea of guilty to a charge of grand larceny January 29, 1970, and at that time his being placed by the district court on probation for a term of two years, conditioned, among other things, that he should 'not violate any law of the State of Wyoming' and 'not use intoxicants of any form.' On January 4, 1971, the county attorney filed a motion to revoke probation and application for bench warrant, reciting that the probationer had on December 25, 1970, been guilty of grand larceny in the violation of § 6-132, W.S.1957, and had on several occasions used intoxicants in violation of the order of probation. The court thereupon issued and caused to be served upon Reisch an order to show cause why the order of probation should not be revoked. At the day set for hearing, the court appointed counsel for Reisch, and the matter some days later came on for hearing on the motion. After some preliminary conversation between court and counsel the court asked if there has been an adjudication of guilt as to the crime alleged in the motion, was told by the county attorney that he thought such determination was the subject of the hearing and that the State was prepared to proceed with evidence of probationer's violation of Wyoming laws. The court refused to hear evidence, stating, inter alia:
* * *
* * *
'* * * The case is dismissed.'
Although a similar matter has not been presented in this jurisdiction, Rule 33(f) W.R.Cr.P., is identical to Rule 32(f), Fed.Rules Cr.Proc., which has repeatedly been held in the federal courts to be consonant with the fundamental principle that any court which grants probation has inherent power to revoke...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pisano v. Shillinger
...(§ 7-13-409) is of questionable value where probation is the concern, in light of our holdings in Knobel, supra, this case, State v. Reisch, 491 P.2d 1254 (Wyo.1971), and Smith v. State, 598 P.2d 1389 (Wyo.1979). In the latter two opinions we said, in essence, that the district court never ......
-
Wlodarczyk v. State
...Criminal Rules of Procedure. 12 Weisser v. State, 600 P.2d 1320 (Wyo.1979); Knobel v. State, 576 P.2d 941 (Wyo.1978); State v. Reisch, 491 P.2d 1254 (Wyo.1971). Conversely, Wyo.Stat. § 7-13-408 provides an expansive and complex administrative agency procedure for revocation of parole from w......
-
Cooney v. Park County
...a probationer and inherent power to revoke probation granted. Knobel v. State [576 P.2d 941, 943 (Wyo.1978) ]; State v. Reisch ( [491 P.2d 1254, 1255 (Wyo.1971) ] * * *." Smith v. State, 598 P.2d 1389, 1390 (Wyo.1979). In Smith we recognized, "a trial judge's sentencing duties in a particul......
-
Ketcham v. State
...the original imposition of conditions, the violation of these, and the reasons leading to such violation. * * * ' State v. Reisch, Wyo., 491 P.2d 1254, 1255 (1971). See Sanchez v. State, Wyo., 592 P.2d 1130 (1979)." Buck v. State, Wyo., 603 P.2d 878, 879 "The sufficiency of the evidence to ......