Michael Angelo Sena, Jr. v. The State of Wyoming, 451 P.3d 1143

Michael A. Sena, Jr. pled no contest in Docket 33-549 to failing to report a change of address; the court suspended a 3–5 year sentence and imposed 3 years’ probation to run consecutive to probation in Docket 32-612.
While still serving (or under suspension of) probation in Docket 32-612, Sena was alleged to have unknown whereabouts June 13–15, 2018; related allegations in 32-612 included leaving the probation office after providing a .103 BAC sample and admitting to drinking.
The court held combined hearings addressing both dockets; Sena admitted the allegations (including that his whereabouts were unknown June 13–15).
The district court revoked probation in both cases and imposed the underlying consecutive 3–5 year sentences; Sena appealed the revocation in Docket 33-549.
The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed, holding the court had statutory authority under Wyo. Stat. § 7-13-305(c) to commence revocation while the sentence was suspended and that revocation was not an abuse of discretion because admissions and surrounding facts supported a willful violation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Authority to revoke probation under § 7-13-305(c) when the probationary term was ordered to run consecutive and the defendant was still serving earlier probation	Sena: "probationary period" requires the defendant be actually serving that specific probationary sentence before revocation may be commenced	State: "probationary period" includes both the period of suspension of sentence and the period of probation; statute’s alternatives must be given effect	Court: statute ambiguous; construed to include the suspension period and the probation period—district court had authority to commence revocation during suspension under § 7-13-305(c)
2. Whether revocation was an abuse of discretion (willfulness)	Sena: no evidence he willfully violated probation; record lacks facts showing he knew/understood the condition or acted willfully	State: Sena admitted the allegations; admissions plus BAC/.103 and leaving after instruction not to leave support an inference of willfulness	Court: no abuse of discretion—admissions and contextual facts supported a reasonable inference of willfulness; Neidlinger distinguished

DeMillard v. State, 332 P.3d 534 (de novo review on whether court had authority to revoke probation)
Phoenix Vintners, LLC v. Noble, 423 P.3d 309 (rules of statutory interpretation; plain meaning and ambiguity analysis)
Adekale v. State, 344 P.3d 761 (statute should not be read to render language meaningless)
Edrington v. State, 185 P.3d 1264 (definition/standard for "willfully" in probation context)
Brumme v. State, 428 P.3d 436 (abuse of discretion standard for revocation and sufficiency of willfulness finding)
Neidlinger v. State, 173 P.3d 376 (due process requires probationer know/understand conditions to justify willful-violation finding)