Wright v. State

• Docket Number: S-23-0113
• Decision Date: 19 December 2023
• Citation: 2023 WY 122
• Parties: TRAVIS JAMES WRIGHT, Appellant (Defendant), v. THE STATE OF WYOMING, Appellee (Plaintiff).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

1

2023 WY 122

TRAVIS JAMES WRIGHT, Appellant (Defendant),
v.
THE STATE OF WYOMING, Appellee (Plaintiff).

No. S-23-0113

Supreme Court of Wyoming

December 19, 2023

Appeal from the District Court of Carbon County The Honorable Dawnessa A. Snyder, Judge.

Representing Appellant: Travis James Wright, pro se.

Representing Appellee: Bridget Hill, Attorney General; Jenny L. Craig, Deputy Attorney General; Kristen R. Jones, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Donovan Burton, Assistant Attorney General.

Before FOX, C.J., and KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, GRAY, and FENN, JJ.

2

FOX, CHIEF JUSTICE.

[¶1] Travis James Wright pled guilty to two counts of sexual exploitation of children. The district court imposed two concurrent sentences of eight to ten years. Mr. Wright appeals the district court's order denying his pro se motion for sentence reduction. We affirm.

ISSUE

[¶2] We consolidate and rephrase the four issues Mr. Wright presents on appeal into one:

1. Did the district court abuse its discretion when it denied Mr. Wright's motion for sentence reduction

FACTS

[¶3] Mr. Wright pled guilty to two counts of sexual exploitation of children. The district court imposed two concurrent sentences of eight to ten years with credit for time served. Mr. Wright timely appealed the district court's sentencing order through private counsel.

[¶4] The district court appointed the state public defender's appellate office to represent Mr. Wright. Mr. Wright voluntarily dismissed his appeal and then filed a timely motion for sentence modification or reduction through counsel. The district court denied the motion. Mr. Wright did not appeal that denial.

[¶5] Mr. Wright later filed, pro se, a second motion for sentence reduction. The district court denied his motion, and Mr. Wright timely appeals.

DISCUSSION

I. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mr. Wright's motion for sentence reduction.

[¶6] "We review a district court's ruling on a motion for a sentence reduction for abuse of discretion." Martinson v. State, 2023 WY 88, ¶ 14, 534 P.3d 913, 917 (Wyo. 2023).

The district court has broad discretion in determining whether to reduce a defendant's sentence, and we will not disturb its determination absent an abuse of discretion. The sentencing judge is in the best position to decide if a sentence modification is appropriate and is free to accept or reject

3

information submitted in support of a sentence reduction at its discretion. Our objective on review is not to weigh the propriety of the sentence if it falls within the sentencing range; we simply consult the information in front of the court and consider whether there was a rational basis from which the district court could reasonably draw its conclusion. Because of the broad discretion given to the district court in sentencing, and our significant deference on appeal, this Court has demonstrated many times in recent years that it is a very difficult bar for an appellant to leap seeking to overturn a sentencing decision on an abuse of discretion argument.

Id. at ¶ 14, 534 P.3d at 918 (quoting Harper v. State, 2023 WY 49, ¶ 5, 529 P.3d 1071, 1073 (Wyo. 2023)).

[¶7] Mr. Wright filed his pro se motion for sentence reduction and supported the motion with personal information, letters of support, and arguments about prosecutorial misconduct and the proportionality of his sentence. He informed the court of his diverse support system and participation in prison classes, a recovery group, and work program. He explained he has not had...