354 P.3d 952
Wyo.2015Background
- Kelvin Williams was charged with two counts of third-degree sexual assault, one count of abuse of a vulnerable adult (Count III), and burglary arising from touching 68‑year‑old A.S.’s breast while she lay in bed on oxygen.
- At arraignment the Information listed multiple statutory alternatives for sexual assault, without specifying which subsection applied.
- At a pretrial bill‑of‑particulars hearing the prosecutor identified Wyo. Stat. § 6‑2‑303(a)(ii) as the theory (causing submission by means that would prevent resistance).
- Pursuant to a plea agreement Williams pled guilty to one count of third‑degree sexual assault and nolo contendere to abuse of a vulnerable adult; other counts were dismissed.
- At the plea hearing the court recited the Information, obtained Williams’s admissions about touching A.S.’s breast and her use of oxygen, and the prosecutor described A.S.’s infirmities; the court accepted the pleas.
- Williams moved to withdraw the pleas alleging they were not knowing and voluntary; the district court denied the motion and Williams appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Williams) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court adequately explained the nature of the third‑degree sexual assault charge and obtained a sufficient factual basis for the guilty plea | The Information was a "laundry list" and the court did not explain the elements or link them to the factual admissions; the record lacked facts showing submission by means preventing resistance under § 6‑2‑303(a)(ii) | Williams attended the bill‑of‑particulars hearing where the State identified § 6‑2‑303(a)(ii); Williams conferred with counsel and affirmed understanding and satisfaction; the record (PSI, affidavit) supplies facts supporting the element | Court: Plea advisement was adequate overall. The court failed to elicit a sufficient factual basis at plea hearing, but considering the entire record (affidavit/PSI, victim’s infirmities) Williams suffered no material prejudice; guilty plea affirmed. |
| Whether the court adequately explained the abuse of a vulnerable adult charge and obtained a sufficient factual basis for the nolo contendere plea | Terms like “abuse” and “vulnerable adult” were not defined at colloquy and Williams lacked understanding of the charge’s nature | The charge’s elements were plainly stated in the Information; Williams consulted counsel; prosecutor and record established victim’s vulnerability (medical conditions, oxygen) | Court: The Information accurately stated the elements; for a nolo plea a separate factual basis is not required. The court adequately explained the charge and acceptance of the nolo plea was proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (plea must be knowing and voluntary)
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (plea constitutes waiver of trial rights and must be voluntary)
- Bradshaw v. Stumpf, 545 U.S. 175 (a defendant must be informed of the crime’s elements for a valid plea)
- Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (real notice of the true nature of the charge is required for due process)
- Peper v. State, 768 P.2d 26 (Wyo. 1989) (reading the charging instrument may suffice in simple cases; court may elicit facts from defendant)
- Wilson v. State, 655 P.2d 1246 (Wyo. 1982) (victim’s infirmities and disparity in physical condition can support finding of submission preventing resistance)
- Vonn v. United States, 535 U.S. 55 (when silent on Rule 11 error, reviewing court may consult the whole record to assess prejudice)