Andrew William Deeds
2014 WY 124
| Wyo. | 2014Background
- Andrew Deeds was charged with seven counts of first-degree sexual abuse of a minor; he pled guilty under an oral agreement to five counts of second-degree sexual abuse, with sentencing left open.
- At the plea hearing Deeds denied intercourse/digital penetration and admitted only "touching," while the prosecutor stated Deeds had previously admitted intrusion about ten times.
- The presentence investigation report (PSI) and an attached affidavit of probable cause included allegations of penile and digital penetration; the victim’s mother’s written PSI statement described intrusion.
- At sentencing the victim’s mother gave an oral victim-impact statement alleging Deeds bragged in jail about the abuse; the prosecutor referenced both intrusion and bragging in argument.
- The district court imposed five consecutive terms of 12–18 years and credited Deeds with 721 days of presentence confinement, but did not specify how the credit applied to each count.
- Deeds appealed, arguing breach of the plea agreement, prosecutorial misconduct/due process violations for referencing first-degree elements and uncorroborated bragging, and that the credit statement violated W.R.Cr.P. 32(c)(2)(F).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Did prosecutor breach plea by referring to first-degree elements at sentencing? | Prosecutor improperly referenced elements of a crime (intrusion) that were not part of the amended plea, breaching the agreement. | The plea was a charge bargain only; sentencing was open, so prosecutor could argue facts relevant to sentencing. | No breach — plea was limited to charge reduction; sentencing arguments were permissible. |
| 2. Did prosecutor deny due process by referencing intrusion (first-degree element) at sentencing? | Referencing intrusion penalized Deeds for an uncharged/unchanged offense and deprived him of due process. | Court may consider PSI, victim impact and other reliable information at sentencing; intrusion was in PSI and uncontested. | No due-process violation — intrusion was documented in PSI and uncontested; no plain error. |
| 3. Did prosecutor deny due process by presenting undocumented bragging allegations first at sentencing? | Bragging allegations were undocumented hearsay presented at sentencing without notice, violating due process. | Victim impact statements are admissible; no indication court relied on bragging; other record support existed for lack of remorse. | Some error: bragging allegation lacked reliable documentation and notice (manifest injustice), but Deeds failed to show the court relied on it; no relief warranted. |
| 4. Did the sentence comply with W.R.Cr.P. 32(c)(2)(F) regarding presentence credit? | Judgment failed to state how 721 days' credit applied to each sentenced offense as required by the rule. | (State did not offer a contrary legal basis in opinion summary.) | Remand required for the district court to specify how the 721 days of presentence confinement credit apply to each sentence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Frederick v. State, 151 P.3d 1136 (Wyo. 2007) (plea agreement principles and breach analysis)
- Ford v. State, 69 P.3d 407 (Wyo. 2003) (use change-of-plea hearing recitation to determine oral plea terms)
- Magnus v. State, 293 P.3d 459 (Wyo. 2013) (reliability of sentencing information; when out-of-record allegations may be considered)
- Peden v. State, 129 P.3d 869 (Wyo. 2006) (due process requires minimal indicia of reliability for sentencing claims not in PSI)
- Christy v. State, 731 P.2d 1204 (Wyo. 1987) (PSI and disclosed reports are evidence for sentencing; defendant must dispute inaccurate items)