428 P.3d 436
Wyo.2018Background
- Brenda Brumme pled guilty to child endangerment (controlled substance) and possession of a controlled substance in June 2017; the court deferred judgment on the child endangerment count and suspended a 2–4 year sentence on possession in favor of concurrent three-year supervised probation terms.
- Probation conditions required substance-abuse treatment, reporting address/phone/living-arrangement changes within 24 hours, appearing for appointments with her probation agent, and submitting to drug/alcohol screens (urinalysis).
- In August 2017 the State alleged three probation violations in a short period: (1) not living at the address she initially provided (Aug. 8); (2) failing to attend a rescheduled urinalysis (Aug. 18); and (3) not living at the new address provided (Aug. 21).
- At the adjudicatory hearing the State’s sole witness was Agent Hatch, who testified he found Brumme absent from the addresses she provided and relayed out-of-court statements by her sister and cousin that Brumme did not live there; the court admitted those hearsay statements as probative, trustworthy, and credible under W.R.Cr.P. 39(a)(5)(B).
- Brumme’s lone defense witness (her boyfriend, Adam Rhodes) testified Brumme lacked the car on Aug. 18 because he took the only vehicle to work. The court found (viewing the evidence most favorably to the State) Brumme violated her reporting and UA obligations and that the UA failure was willful; it revoked probation and imposed the underlying sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Brumme's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court abused discretion by relying on hearsay to find Brumme failed to provide accurate addresses on Aug. 8 and Aug. 21 | State relied solely on hearsay; insufficient non‑hearsay proof | Officer’s non‑hearsay testimony (Brumme absent at addresses; she provided a new address) plus corroborating testimony supported findings | No abuse; non‑hearsay evidence corroborated overheard statements, supporting violation findings |
| Whether State failed to prove missed urinalysis by preponderance | Agent’s testimony didn’t explicitly say she missed the UA; prosecutor’s question improperly supplied the fact | Agent’s testimony and reasonable inferences from testimony and defendant’s witness established she missed and failed to contact the officer | No; circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences satisfied preponderance standard |
| Whether missed urinalysis was willful | Lack of evidence of intent; transportation excuse (no car) | Knowledge of appointment, lack of contact or excuse, and circumstances support willfulness | No clear error; trial court reasonably found the violation willful during dispositional phase |
| Whether revocation and imposition of sentences was abuse of discretion | Revocation improper given evidentiary deficits and lack of willfulness | Court properly weighed violations, probation terms, failure to engage in treatment, and exercised discretion | Affirmed — district court did not abuse discretion in revoking probation and imposing sentences |
Key Cases Cited
- Forbes v. State, 220 P.3d 510 (Wyo. 2009) (standards for reviewing probation revocation and discretion to revoke)
- Miller v. State, 350 P.3d 742 (Wyo. 2015) (view evidence in light most favorable to district court; credibility and inferences for trial court)
- Robinson v. State, 378 P.3d 599 (Wyo. 2016) (hearsay may be admitted if probative/trustworthy but probation should not be revoked solely on hearsay)
- Mapp v. State, 929 P.2d 1222 (Wyo. 1996) (court must consider reasons conditions imposed and circumstances surrounding violation when revoking)
- Minchew v. State, 685 P.2d 30 (Wyo. 1984) (probation revocation is not a new criminal trial; due process principles applicable)
- John Q. Hammons Inc. v. Poletis, 954 P.2d 1353 (Wyo. 1998) (circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences constitute competent proof)
- Crouse v. State, 405 P.3d 216 (Wyo. 2017) (rules of evidence do not apply during dispositional phase; willfulness determination is factual)