Mercer v. State, 273 P.3d 1100

Mercer faced four counts of first-degree sexual abuse of a minor and two counts of second-degree sexual abuse; the State sought to amend charges to include prior-conviction allegations with life sentences, which the district court granted.
Mercer reached a plea agreement: the State would dismiss the amended information and proceed under the original information, eliminating mandatory life sentences; Mercer would plead no contest to two counts of first-degree and one count of second-degree sexual abuse of a minor.
There was no sentencing agreement; Mercer affirmed his understanding of the plea and the district court accepted the no-contest pleas.
At sentencing, evidence and arguments were presented by Mercer, his counsel, and the State; the State sought long, consecutive sentences, while Mercer urged alternatives such as treatment or lesser terms.
The district court sentenced Mercer to multi-decade terms: 20–35 years on each of the two first-degree counts, plus 10–15 years on the second-degree count, with probation after the third count, all to be served consecutively.
Mercer appeals, arguing the State breached the plea by misstating facts and urging harsh sentences based on alleged lack of personal responsibility.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the State breach the plea agreement at sentencing by misstating facts and urging harsh penalties for lack of responsibility?	Mercer	Mercer	No breach; misstatements were harmless and the plea was unaffected.
Did the prosecutor impermissibly misstate the plea status or expand the factual basis at sentencing?	Mercer	Mercer	Misstatements were harmless and not prejudicial.
Was the sentencing based on improper grounds tied to no-contest status of the pleas?	Mercer	Mercer	Not improper; sentencing relied on Mercer’s statements and safeguards, not plea status.

Wilks v. State, 2002 WY 100, 49 P.3d 975 (Wyoming 2002) (prosecutor not to misstate the evidence in sentencing or trial)
Peitsmeyer v. State, 2001 WY 38, 21 P.3d 733 (Wyoming 2001) (no need to establish factual basis for no-contest pleas at initial proceedings)
Van Haele v. State, 2004 WY 59, 90 P.3d 708 (Wyoming 2004) (plea and sentencing considerations; functional equivalence of pleas for sentencing)
Wilson v. State, 2003 WY 59, 68 P.3d 1181 (Wyoming 2003) (differences between guilty and no-contest pleas treated as functionally equivalent for sentencing)
Ford v. State, 2003 WY 65, 69 P.3d 407 (Wyoming 2003) (plain error standard when issue not raised in district court)