Representing Appellant: Pro se.
Representing Appellee: Peter K. Michael, Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; Jeffrey S. Pope, Assistant Attorney General; Brian J. Fuller, Student Intern.
Before KITE, C.J., and HILL, VOIGT, BURKE, and DAVIS, JJ.
[¶ 1] Dustin Lee Yearout challenges the district court's denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. We will affirm the district court's decision.
[¶ 2] The issue presented is whether Mr. Yearout is entitled to credit against his sentence for the time he spent in an in-patient substance abuse treatment program, and for the time he spent on intensive supervised probation.
[¶ 3] In late 2010, Mr. Yearout was charged with two counts of burglary in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-3-301(a) (LexisNexis 2009) and one count of aggravated burglary in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-3-301(c). He soon reached a plea agreement with the State. The State agreed to reduce the third count from aggravated burglary to burglary, and Mr. Yearout agreed to plead guilty to the three burglary charges. The parties agreed to recommend three concurrent
sentences of four to seven years in prison, with the sentences being suspended in lieu of one year in jail and seven years supervised probation.
[¶ 4] The district court accepted the guilty pleas, and sentenced Mr. Yearout as the parties recommended. The district court ordered that, following the jail term, Mr. Yearout would be placed on intensive supervised probation for a period of seven years. One of the conditions of his probation was to participate in and complete an in-patient substance abuse treatment program.
[¶ 5] In early 2012, a probation agent informed the district court that Mr. Yearout had completed the substance abuse program as ordered, and was now on intensive supervised probation. Later that year, the State petitioned the district court to revoke Mr. Yearout's probation, alleging several violations of the terms and conditions of his probation. Mr. Yearout initially denied the allegations, but admitted to them at a later hearing. The district court revoked his probation and reinstated his original sentence of three concurrent terms of four to seven years in prison. The district court awarded credit for thirty-six days of pre-sentence confinement.
[¶ 6] In 2013, Mr. Yearout filed a motion pursuant to W.R.Cr.P. 35(a) to correct an illegal sentence. He contended that his sentence was illegal because the district court had not awarded credit for the time he spent in jail, in treatment, and on probation. He sought credit for an additional 691 days. The district court granted Mr. Yearout's petition in part, awarding credit for the 365 days he served in the county jail. It denied the motion in part, ruling that Mr. Yearout was not entitled to credit ...