Center v. State
252 P.3d 963
Wyo.2011Background
- Center pled nolo contendere to aggravated assault and battery on Sept. 4, 2008; judgment entered Sept. 23, 2008; sentence and mittimus entered Nov. 24, 2008, ordering 36–80 months with conditional stay pending WYSTAR admission and a furlough for treatment.
- District court permitted treatment at WYSTAR pending execution of sentence, conditioning release on successful completion of the program, with failure to complete leading to arrest, execution of sentence, and transfer to prison without a hearing.
- Center allegedly failed at WYSTAR, notably by not completing the first step of Alcoholics Anonymous; transfer to the Department of Corrections occurred (January 28, 2009) after treatment attempts.
- Center moved for correction of illegal sentence; district court denied; Center filed appeal, asserting due process violations in the initial transfer and in the delegation of revocation decisions.
- Wyoming law authorizes a furlough program under § 7-13-701, but the district court’s structure purportedly allowed revocation and transfer without a hearing, and did not credit time served at WYSTAR.
- The Supreme Court remanded to credit Center for all time served at WYSTAR, affirming the sentence in all other respects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the district court violate due process by sending Center to prison without hearings? | Center contends violation of Fourteenth Amendment due process and Wyoming Constitution. | State argues sentencing structure and stay conformed to lawful delegation and terms. | No due process violation found; not illegal sentence; remand to credit time served at WYSTAR. |
| Did the sentence improperly delegate revocation to non-judicial personnel via furlough, violating due process? | Center argues delegation of revocation to WYSTAR officials without a hearing was unlawful. | State contends statutory framework supported the arrangement and hearings were not required in this context. | Not a basis to deem the sentence illegal; remand limited to crediting time served; otherwise affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Endris v. State, 2010 WY 73 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 2010) (illegal sentence defined; validity of statutory limits reviewed de novo)
- Sanchez v. State, 982 P.2d 149 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1999) (definition and scope of an illegal sentence)
- McCarty v. State, 929 P.2d 524 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1996) (res judicata in post-conviction challenges to sentences)
- Lacey v. State, 2003 WY 148 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 2003) (preclusion of issues not raised on direct appeal or prior motions)
- Dolence v. State, 2005 WY 27 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 2005) (res judicata and time-bar considerations in post-sentencing challenges)
- Amin v. State, 2006 WY 84 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 2006) (res judicata effect in Rule 35(a) challenges)
- Mead v. State, 2 P.3d 564 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 2000) (preclusion principles in post-conviction relief)
- Brown v. State, 2004 WY 119 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 2004) (definition of illegal sentence; statutory interpretation basics)
- Ryan v. State, 988 P.2d 46 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1999) (illegal sentence standards and procedural review)
- McDaniel v. State, 2007 WY 125 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 2007) (role of res judicata in post-conviction challenges)