Schade v. State

Summary

The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed Sidney Schade’s convictions and consecutive prison sentences following his guilty pleas to two counts of immoral or indecent acts with a minor. The court held that the State did not breach the plea agreement, the guilty pleas were knowing and voluntary under Wyoming Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, and the sentencing delay was reasonable because it resulted from Schade’s requests to pursue alternative placement programs.

Holdings

1. The State did not breach the first plea agreement because Schade failed to obtain the sex-offender evaluation during the period before his arrest, and the first agreement was subsequently replaced by a second plea agreement that eliminated the evaluation requirement and instead conditioned the probation recommendation on acceptance into an intensive-supervision or comparable program.
2. The district court complied with Wyoming Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(d), and Schade's guilty pleas were knowing and voluntary because the record showed that he understood the agreement's conditions and entered the pleas without threats or improper promises.
3. Rule 11(e)(2) did not require the district court to advise Schade that he could not withdraw his guilty pleas because the second plea agreement's probation recommendation was conditional on program acceptance, Schade failed to satisfy that condition, and no probation recommendation was made or rejected by the court.
4. The sentencing delay did not violate due process and was not an abuse of discretion because the State demonstrated that the delay resulted from Schade's requests for continuances and efforts to obtain alternative community placement.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the State breached the first plea agreement by revoking Schade's bond and thereby preventing him from obtaining a sex-offender evaluation.
2. Whether Schade's guilty pleas were involuntary because the district court failed to advise him of the consequences of violating the plea agreement.
3. Whether the district court violated Wyoming Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(e)(2) by failing to advise Schade that he could not withdraw his guilty plea if the court rejected the sentencing recommendation.
4. Whether the delay of more than one year between Schade's guilty pleas and sentencing violated due process or constituted impermissible delay.
5. Whether the sentence was illegal because of allegedly illegal interim probationary terms.

Disposition

affirmed