413 P.3d 116
Wyo.2018Background
- Devin Jay Hardman entered a conditional nolo contendere plea to DUI causing serious bodily injury under Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 31-5-233(b)(i) and (h)(i).
- The plea was conditioned to preserve appeal of the district court's denial of Hardman’s motion to suppress a 0.08% blood alcohol concentration (BAC) and to allow further Daubert hearings.
- The district court signed an Order Granting Entry of Conditional Plea under W.R.Cr.P. 11(a)(2), identifying those specific issues and approving the written reservation.
- The State consented and the court approved the conditional plea as to form; the question became whether the plea satisfied all requirements of Rule 11(a)(2).
- The Wyoming Supreme Court framed the threshold question as whether the conditional plea was proper, focusing on whether all preserved issues were dispositive as required by precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Hardman) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of conditional plea under W.R.Cr.P. 11(a)(2) | The plea satisfied written reservation, State consent, and court approval — thus valid. | The plea preserved appellate review of identified pretrial rulings; the conditional plea should be allowed. | Invalid: plea contains a non-dispositive issue, so entire conditional plea fails. |
| Whether suppression of BAC would be dispositive | State implicitly contended appeal may not dispose case. | Suppression of the 0.08% BAC would compel dismissal by removing essential evidence. | Suppression issue is dispositive: favorable ruling would compel dismissal. |
| Whether remand for further Daubert hearings is dispositive | Remand could affect admissibility but not necessarily dispose of charges. | Hardman sought remand for Daubert proceedings as a reserved issue. | Remand for Daubert is non-dispositive; it may produce various outcomes and not necessarily end case. |
| Effect of including a non-dispositive issue in the conditional plea | State relied on procedural approval to uphold plea. | Hardman argued preserved issues justified the plea. | Court held precedent requires all preserved issues be dispositive; inclusion of a non-dispositive issue invalidates the entire conditional plea. |
Key Cases Cited
- Matthews v. State, 322 P.3d 1279 (Wyo. 2014) (sets Rule 11(a)(2) requirements for conditional pleas)
- Walters v. State, 197 P.3d 1273 (Wyo. 2008) (holds entire conditional plea invalid if it contains a non-dispositive issue)
- Brown v. State, 393 P.3d 1265 (Wyo. 2017) (applied the dispositive-issue requirement for conditional pleas)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (governs admissibility of expert scientific testimony)