from the District Court of Uinta County The Honorable Joseph
B. Bluemel, Judge
Representing Appellant: Office of the State Public Defender:
Diane M. Lozano, State Public Defender; Kirk A. Morgan, Chief
Appellate Counsel; Desiree Wilson, Senior Assistant Appellate
Representing Appellee: Peter K. Michael, Wyoming Attorney
General; Christyne M. Martens, Deputy Attorney General;
Caitlin F. Harper, Senior Assistant Attorney General.
DAVIS, C.J., and BURKE [*] , FOX, KAUTZ, and BOOMGAARDEN, JJ.
Appellant, Brenda Marie Brumme, appeals from the district
court's order revoking her probation and imposing the
underlying sentences for her child endangerment and
controlled substance convictions. We affirm.
Ms. Brumme presents three issues for our review:
1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by
relying solely on hearsay evidence to find Ms. Brumme
violated a condition of her probation on two occasions?
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion in
finding Ms. Brumme violated a probation condition by failing
to submit to a scheduled urinalysis when the violation was
not proven by a preponderance of the evidence?
3. Whether the district court's finding that Ms. Brumme
willfully violated a probation condition requiring her to
report for a urinalysis test was clearly erroneous because
there was no evidence of willfulness?
In June 2017, Ms. Brumme entered into a plea agreement and
pled guilty to two felonies: endangering children (controlled
substance), a violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-4-405(b)
and (c) (Lexis Nexis 2017), and possession of a controlled
substance, a violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. §
35-7-1031(c)(i)(C) and (c)(ii) (Lexis Nexis 2017). The
district court deferred entering a judgment on Ms.
Brumme's child endangerment charge under Wyo. Stat. Ann.
§ 7-13-301 and placed her on three years of supervised
probation. On the possession charge, the district court
imposed a sentence of not less than two, nor more than four
years, which it suspended in favor of three years of
supervised probation. The court ordered the probationary
periods to be served concurrently.
As a condition of probation, the district court noted Ms.
Brumme's addiction to methamphetamine and required her
participation in a treatment program. The court also mandated
Ms. Brumme's compliance with the Wyoming Department of
Corrections Probation and Parole Agreement, which, in
relevant part, required Ms. Brumme to appear for appointments
with her probation agent; report any changes to her address,
phone number, and living arrangements within 24 hours; and
submit to alcohol and drug screenings. The district court
emphasized these requirements to Ms. Brumme during the
You'll not cancel any appointments related to
supervision without the prior permission of your probation
agent. Those appointments include but are not
limited to office meetings, counseling appointments,
doctor[']s appointments, and appointments with Job
Service. And when I talk about not absconding from
probation, that means that you'll sleep in the house that
you tell your agent you'll sleep in.
(Emphasis added.) The court's written judgment and
sentence incorporated these terms.
The State asked the district court to revoke Ms. Brumme's
probation in September 2017, alleging three violations within
two months of sentencing:
• On or about August 8, 2017, the Defendant was found to
not be living at the address she provided to her Probation
• On or about August 18, 2017, the Defendant failed to
attend an office visit for a urinalysis as previously
• On or about August 21, 2017, the Defendant was found
to not be living at the new address she had provided to her
district court held an initial probation revocation
proceeding on October 17, 2017. Ms. Brumme denied the
allegations and the district court set an adjudicatory
hearing for the following week.
During the adjudicatory hearing, the State called Ms.
Brumme's probation officer, Agent Hatch, as its sole
witness. Agent Hatch testified that when Ms. Brumme
registered for probation in July 2017, she informed his
office she lived with her sister, Ms. Hutcherson, and
provided her sister's address and phone number as her
contact information. After Ms. Brumme missed a scheduled
appointment on August 8, 2017, Agent Hatch attempted to
locate Ms. Brumme at her sister's home. Ms. Brumme was
not at the residence when Agent Hatch arrived. Over a hearsay
objection overruled by the district court, Agent Hatch
testified "Ms. Hutcherson told me that since she was a
foster parent, that M[s]. Brumme was never allowed to live
there [nor] did she ever live there." Ms. Brumme called
Agent Hatch later that day. Agent Hatch informed her of his
visit to her sister's house and inquired about her living
situation. Ms. Brumme provided an updated address and stated
she lived with her cousin on Grass Valley. Agent Hatch
rescheduled Ms. Brumme's appointment for August 17, 2017.
Ms. Brumme appeared for her appointment in Evanston on August
17, 2017, but the urinalysis could not be performed because a
female probation officer was not available. Agent Hatch
verbally instructed Ms. Brumme to report back at 8:00 a.m.
the next morning. Agent Hatch confirmed he attempted to
contact Ms. Brumme after she failed to report back as
directed by going to the Grass Valley address she previously
provided. Ms. Brumme was not at the residence when he
arrived. Over another hearsay objection, Agent Hatch
testified that Ms. Brumme's cousin stated Ms. Brumme did
not live at that address. The district court overruled the
objection, finding the testimony was probative, trustworthy,
and credible and, thus, admissible.
Defense counsel called Adam Rhodes, Ms. Brumme's
significant other, as her sole witness. Mr. Rhodes testified
that on August 18, 2017, he went to work and took the
"only car [they] had." He also testified that Ms.
Brumme was "really mad" at him for leaving her
without a vehicle that day.
Defense counsel argued in closing that the State failed to
establish the terms of probation purportedly violated and, in
any event, the State's evidence did not support
revocation because it was based solely on hearsay. Defense
counsel further argued Ms. Brumme missed her scheduled
urinalysis because she lacked transportation. The district
court took judicial notice of Ms. Brumme's probation
conditions and determined Ms. Brumme violated her probation
as to each of the State's allegations.
After hearing from counsel and Ms. Brumme at the disposition
hearing, the district court remarked it provided Ms. Brumme
"three bites out of the apple" and yet she still
refused to take responsibility for her underlying criminal
actions and she had not enrolled in, much less successfully
completed, the requisite treatment course for her substance
abuse issues as previously ordered. The court also noted Ms.
Brumme failed to take responsibility for misleading her
probation agent about her living arrangements, instead
blaming her failure to provide accurate addresses on her
family members. The district court revoked its prior order
deferring judgment on Ms. Brumme's child endangerment
charge and revoked probation on the ...