Bazzle v. State, 434 P.3d 1090

Background

Bazzle pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana (3rd offense) under a plea agreement that suspended a 3–5 year sentence in favor of five years' supervised probation, conditioned on completing residential treatment and the Sublette County Treatment Court; he waived "any ... appeals" in the agreement.
Probation terms expressly required successful completion of recommended ASAM Level III.5 residential treatment, adherence to prescriptions, and enrollment in and completion of the Treatment Court program.
Bazzle used buprenorphine/Suboxone during probation, tested positive, and was told he could not enter Treatment Court while using opioid-type medications; he entered residential treatment but left after 58 days with a "maximum benefits" discharge.
Treatment Court coordinator required Bazzle to taper off Suboxone (six-month plan) and to submit a detailed tapering/titration plan; Bazzle submitted a handwritten plan and continued using Suboxone, and Treatment Court denied his participation.
State filed a petition to revoke probation; after adjudicatory and dispositional hearings the district court found Bazzle willfully violated material probation conditions and revoked probation, imposing the original suspended sentence. Bazzle appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Bazzle)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Does Bazzle's plea waiver bar this appeal?	Waiver language ambiguous but Bazzle does not rely on waiver; implication is waiver should not preclude appeal of a subsequent probation revocation.	The waiver broadly bars "any ... appeals," so it should preclude this appeal.	Waiver construed narrowly; it did not clearly include appeals from future probation revocation, so appeal considered.
Did the district court improperly shift burden to Bazzle at adjudicatory stage?	Court comment indicated defendant must show success to keep probation; this amounted to shifting burden to defendant.	Court merely described defendant's obligation to comply; State proceeded first and bore burden.	No clear error; record shows State bore burden by preponderance and court did not shift burden.
Did the court err by finding willfulness at adjudicatory phase?	Finding willfulness at adjudicatory stage deprived Bazzle of opportunity to present mitigation at dispositional phase.	Although premature, Bazzle had opportunity to present mitigation in subsequent disposition hearings; no material prejudice.	Court erred procedurally in timing but Bazzle was not materially prejudiced; error harmless.
Was there sufficient evidence that violations were willful?	Bazzle claimed medical justification and confusion about "maximum benefits" discharge; argued nonwillful conduct.	Evidence showed Bazzle knew maximum benefits was not successful completion, voluntarily left treatment, continued Suboxone despite notices, and failed to follow tapering plan.	Evidence supported willfulness findings for both failure to complete residential treatment and failure to qualify for Treatment Court; revocation affirmed.

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2004) (framework for evaluating appellate-waiver scope)
United States v. Porter, 905 F.3d 1175 (10th Cir. 2018) (general plea-waiver does not necessarily bar appeal of supervised-release revocation absent specific waiver)
United States v. Carruth, 528 F.3d 845 (11th Cir. 2008) (appeal waiver in plea agreement did not extend to later supervised-release revocation without explicit language)
Brumme v. State, 428 P.3d 436 (Wyo. 2018) (review standard for probation revocation and willfulness requirement)
Neidlinger v. State, 173 P.3d 376 (Wyo. 2007) (probationer must understand what compliance requires; vague conditions cannot support willful-violation finding)