David Charles Croy, 334 P.3d 564

David Croy pled no contest to one count of felony interference with a police officer; plea agreement had State recommending a 3–5 year sentence suspended with five years probation.
At sentencing the State maintained its recommendation, but the district court sentenced Croy to 3–6 years’ incarceration instead.
The underlying incident involved an intoxicated Croy biting an officer; Croy had alcohol involved in the arrest.
Presentence report and court discussion reflected an extensive criminal history, including 11 prior DUI convictions and prior failures to complete treatment or comply with probation.
The district court emphasized community safety, Croy’s chronic alcoholism, repeated criminal conduct while on probation, and risk of future drunk driving as reasons for imposing incarceration.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether sentencing to 3–6 years was an abuse of discretion	Croy argued the court abused its discretion by rejecting the plea recommendation of suspended sentence and probation	State argued the court properly considered Croy’s history, PSI, community safety, and statutory range	Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion; sentence within statutory range and supported by record

Roeschlein v. State, 168 P.3d 468 (Wyo. 2007) (standard of appellate review for sentencing)
Magnus v. State, 293 P.3d 459 (Wyo. 2013) (appellate burden to show prejudicial sentencing error)
Joreski v. State, 288 P.3d 413 (Wyo. 2012) (district court may consider PSI and other factors at sentencing)
Duke v. State, 209 P.3d 563 (Wyo. 2009) (PSI recommendations are permissible factors)
Mehring v. State, 860 P.2d 1101 (Wyo. 1993) (prior criminal activity relevant to sentencing)
Wright v. State, 670 P.2d 1090 (Wyo. 1983) (four purposes of sentencing, including removal from society)