Anderson v. State, 408 P.3d 1148

Donna Anderson, as her brother Glendon Hines’s SSA payee, used $27,879.16 of his benefits for her personal expenses (Dec 2014–Dec 2015).
Charged with theft and exploitation of a vulnerable adult; pleaded guilty to exploitation; theft dismissed.
Sentenced to 4–6 years (suspended) and six years supervised probation; ordered $27,879.16 restitution and specific probation conditions.
Probation conditions included $500 minimum monthly restitution payments, prohibition on purchasing cable or cell-phone services while restitution outstanding, and liquidation of recreational vehicle(s) to pay restitution.
Anderson appealed only the district court’s authority to impose restitution-related probation conditions absent a court‑approved restitution plan; the State conceded some alleged errors but later withdrew those concessions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether sentencing court may impose restitution-related probation conditions without a court‑approved restitution plan	Anderson: Statute requires a restitution plan prepared with probation officer and approved by the court before restitution‑related conditions may be imposed	State: Court has authority to impose restitution terms with or without a formal restitution plan; monthly payment reasonable	Court: Statutes do not limit court’s authority to impose restitution conditions outside a restitution plan; upholds condition and reliance on Hart precedent
Validity of prohibition on purchasing cable or cell‑phone services during restitution period	Anderson: Challenges authority to impose because no restitution plan; does not argue condition per se unreasonable	State: Initially conceded condition unsupported by record; said it may be reasonable in some cases	Court: Condition was reasonably related to offense and rehabilitation given record (PSI, victim statement); no abuse of discretion
Requirement to liquidate recreational vehicle(s) to pay restitution	Anderson: Challenges authority as above (no plan)	State: Conceded error arguing liquidation must occur via execution on judgment	Court: Statutes permitting execution do not preclude probation condition requiring liquidation; liquidation condition reasonably related to restitution — no error

Farnsworth v. State, 405 P.3d 1067 (Wyo. 2017) (statutory interpretation of sentencing authority reviewed de novo)
Harada v. State, 368 P.3d 275 (Wyo. 2016) (probation conditions must be reasonably related to rehabilitation, the offense, or deterrence)
Hart v. State, 37 P.3d 1286 (Wyo. 2002) (court may set restitution terms absent a prepared restitution plan)
Mitchell v. State, 982 P.2d 717 (Wyo. 1999) (forfeiture/collection issues distinguished from probation‑condition authority)