Robert Owen Marshall, III, 340 P.3d 283

Marshall pleaded guilty to a third or subsequent offense of possession of a controlled substance (felony) and a misdemeanor driving while under the influence.
The district court ordered a presentence investigation, including a substance abuse assessment under the Addicted Offender Accountability Act (AOAA).
The assessment recommended clinically managed high intensity residential treatment; the district court found Marshall a “qualified offender” and sentenced him to 2–4 years with a treatment recommendation, plus a $75 assessment fee.
Marshall appealed arguing the AOAA did not authorize ordering the assessment or using its results to label him a qualified offender.
The court held the AOAA requires a substance abuse assessment as part of the presentence process and permits treatment if a defendant is found a qualified offender; it may order and consider treatment.
The opinion affirmed the district court’s authority and decision, including the assessment, labeling, and recommended treatment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does AOAA authorize pre-sentencing substance abuse assessment and payment?	Marshall contends there is no authority since no conviction yet under AOAA.	Marshall's interpretation would render AOAA's purposes ineffective; the act requires assessment and classification prior to sentencing.	Yes; AOAA authorizes the assessment and its use in sentencing.

Merrill v. Jansma, 86 P.3d 270 (Wyoming 2004) (statutory interpretation and intent in AOAA context)
Stanton v. State, 130 P.3d 486 (Wyoming 2006) (AOAA considerations and sentencing)
Daves v. State, 249 P.3d 250 (Wyoming 2011) (statutory construction and AOAA framework)
Gomez v. State, 311 P.3d 621 (Wyoming 2013) (AOAA and qualified offender framework)
Duke v. State, 209 P.3d 563 (Wyoming 2009) (AOAA procedures and sentencing options)
Doherty v. State, 131 P.3d 963 (Wyoming 2006) (AOAA assessments and related procedures)