Miller v. State, 350 P.3d 742

Miller pleaded guilty to second-degree sexual abuse of a minor; sentence of 5–10 years suspended with six years supervised probation and multiple special conditions (sex-offender evaluation, PPG, maintain telephone, notify agent of whereabouts, no cancellations without permission).
He missed a required sexual offender evaluation scheduled April 14, 2014; was jailed for six days as a sanction and rescheduled for April 21.
On April 21 Miller borrowed a vehicle (while his license was suspended), it broke down en route to Salt Lake City, and he did not notify his probation agent for over 12 hours; he said his phone was dead after jail and he lacked the evaluation funds earlier because his wife lost their card.
The State petitioned to revoke probation for multiple violations (failure to obtain evaluation and PPG, no-show April 21, unknown whereabouts April 21, failure to register — later found not violated, ISP termination).
At the revocation hearing the district court found Miller violated several conditions, rejected his explanations as not credible or showing inadequate planning, and revoked probation, ordering service of the sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether revocation required an express finding of willfulness	Miller: court erred by not expressly finding violations were willful	State: court implicitly addressed willfulness in credibility/dispositional analysis	Court: no reversible error — explicit word not required where court evaluated willfulness and rejected excuses
Whether Miller willfully violated non‑payment/appointment conditions	Miller: missed appointments and evaluation due to lack of funds and car breakdown — factors beyond his control	State: Miller failed to plan, did not timely raise inability to pay, and could have sought court relief or assistance	Court: evidence supports willfulness — inadequate planning and failure to seek relief justify revocation
Whether failure to notify agent was excusable	Miller: phone dead after jail; could not contact agent	State: required to maintain phone and keep agent informed; he made no credible effort to charge phone or arrange contact	Court: agent credibility accepted; 12+ hour lack of contact unreasonable and supports revocation
Whether driving on suspended license/ISP termination affects willfulness determination	Miller: breakdown was unforeseen; relied on borrowed car	State: driving on suspended license violated law and showed poor planning, supporting willfulness	Court: driving on suspended license and overall conduct weighed toward willfulness and justified revocation

Sinning v. State, 172 P.3d 388 (Wyo. 2007) (probation revocation is two‑part; willfulness required for non‑monetary violations)
Mapp v. State, 929 P.2d 1222 (Wyo. 1996) (standards for revocation and deference to district court discretion)
Anderson v. State, 43 P.3d 108 (Wyo. 2002) (upholding discretionary revocation where court finds willful violation)
Robinson v. State, 64 P.3d 743 (Wyo. 2003) (factual findings on credibility/willfulness are reviewed for clear error)
Edrington v. State, 185 P.3d 1264 (Wyo. 2008) (same standard on appellate review of revocation findings)
Johnson v. State, 6 P.3d 1261 (Wyo. 2000) (probation not to be revoked for inability to pay unless probationer had reasonable ability or sought modification)
Kupec v. State, 835 P.2d 359 (Wyo. 1992) (financial inability may excuse compliance where beyond control)
Schiefor v. State, 774 P.2d 133 (Wyo. 1989) (payments conditions enforceable only if probationer is reasonably able to pay)