Appeal from the District Court of Albany County The Honorable Jeffrey A. Donnell, Judge S-11-0157
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Voigt, Justice.
Before KITE, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, VOIGT, and BURKE, JJ.
This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in Pacific Reporter Third. Readers are requested to notify the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002, of any typographical or other formal errors so that correction may be made before final publication in the permanent volume.
[¶1] This is an appeal from a district court order reimposing sentence after the appellant's probation was revoked. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.
[¶2] Did the district court abuse its discretion in reimposing sentence upon revocation of the appellant's probation?
[¶3] The appellant was charged with three felony counts of interference with a peace officer. He pled not guilty to all three counts at arraignment. Subsequently, however, he entered into a plea agreement whereby two counts were dismissed, he pled guilty to the third count, and the State agreed to recommend suspension of incarceration in favor of supervised probation. After receiving a Presentence Investigation Report, the district court held a sentencing hearing, at the end of which it sentenced the appellant to the custody of the Department of Corrections for incarceration for a period of not less than three years nor more than six years. The prison sentence was suspended pursuant to the split sentencing provision of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-13-107 (LexisNexis 2011), and the appellant was ordered to serve 180 days in the county jail, to be followed by four years of supervised probation.
[¶4] After the appellant served his jail sentence, and after he had been on supervised probation for some time, the State filed a Petition for Revocation of Probation. The petition recited five alleged probation violations, four involving alcohol consumption and one based upon a larceny conviction. During a hearing on the petition, the appellant admitted the violations. The district court heard from the appellant and counsel, and then reimposed the original sentence, giving credit for time served.
[¶5] We apply the following standard in reviewing a district court's determination to revoke probation and to reimpose an original sentence:
The imposition as well as the revocation of probation lies within the sound discretion of the district court, and we will not reverse the actions of the district court unless that discretion is abused. Therefore, the decision of a court to revoke probation and deny a sentence reduction motion in reimposing an original sentence is entitled to considerable deference by an appellate court. We will not reverse the actions of the district court in sentence reduction, probation revocation, and sentence imposition cases unless there is a clear abuse of discretion. Upon review, all that is necessary to uphold a district court's decision to revoke probation is evidence that it made a conscientious judgment, after hearing the facts, that a condition of probation had been violated.
Trujillo v. State , 2002 WY 56, ¶ 6, 44 P.3d 943, 945 (Wyo. 2002) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Where, as here, the question is not whether probation should be revoked, but whether the original ...