 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Anderson v. State3/28/2002
istrict court that Anderson was "waving a knife around" on December 20, 1999. Clearly, if verified, such an occurrence would justify revocation of probation. We can only conclude that it was not verified, or that it was not verifiable, since no admissible evidence of any sort was ever offered below. The prosecutor's announcements about this alleged event were the most damning "evidence" against Anderson. The district court should have taken action to sustain Anderson's objections and should have placed on the record a statement that the information was not considered either in revoking probation or in imposing sentence. While in many such circumstances we might afford the district court a presumption that such prejudicial, but unverified, unreliable and inadmissible, material was ignored in making weighty decisions such as those made here, it would be very difficult for us to do so under the circumstances of this case.
Did the District Court Err in Failing to Establish a Factual Basis for Guilty Plea ?
[ ] We set out Anderson's version of the circumstances of the crime to which she pleaded guilty above. The factual basis for accepting a guilty plea may be inferred from circumstances surrounding the crime and need not be established only from the defendant's statement. Rude v. State, 851 P.2d 15, 17-18 (Wyo. 1993); also see Barnes v. State, 951 P.2d 386, 388-89 (Wyo. 1998). In this case, the only evidence presented was Anderson's admissions. However, the district court properly could infer from Anderson's recitation of the facts that she committed the aggravated assault and battery, even though Anderson "qualified" her admission with an excuse as to why she was justified in doing so. Thus, Anderson admitted the gravamen of the event, though it was coupled with what could be viewed as a defense that a jury might have treated as a basis for finding her not guilty. The mere fact that a bona fide defense might exist does not vitiate the entry of the guilty plea. Johnston v. State, 829 P.2d 1179, 1182 (Wyo. 1992). We hold there was a sufficient factual basis for the crime so that the district court did not err in accepting her guilty plea.
CONCLUSION
[ ] The State failed to present verifiable, admissible evidence to establish that Anderson failed to attend and/or complete assigned counseling. The evidence presented in that regard only proved that Anderson had failed to prove that she did complete such counseling. Such evidence will not suffice to sustain the revocation of her probation. In addition, there is a paucity of evidence in the record with respect to Anderson's performance on probation. The record suggests that Anderson failed to report in March of 2000, but that may have been the result of a genuine "misunderstanding." Moreover, the violation, if any, appears to be indisputably inconsequential, both in terms of its role in the revocation of a probationary term such as Anderson's and the risk that such a violation might pose to society and/or to the good discipline necessary to the functioning of probation. We are persuaded that it cannot, by itself, serve as a justification for revoking Anderson's probation given the state of the record on appeal.
[ ] For the reasons set out in detail above, the order revoking Anderson's probation, as well as the order imposing sentence upon her, are reversed and vacated, and the matter is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Wyoming Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|