Andrew William Deeds v. State of Wyoming

Summary

The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed Andrew Deeds's convictions and sentences for five counts of second-degree sexual abuse of a minor. The court held that the prosecutor did not breach the plea agreement or commit reversible misconduct by referring to the underlying conduct and intrusion evidence during sentencing. It concluded that allegations of jailhouse bragging were unreliable but did not establish a due process violation because the sentencing court did not appear to rely on them. The court remanded for clarification of how presentence confinement credit should be applied under Wyoming Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(c)(2)(F).

Holdings

1. The prosecutor did not breach the plea agreement by referring at sentencing to sexual intrusion and other facts relating to the originally charged offense because the agreement reduced the charges but imposed no limitation on either party's sentencing arguments.
2. The prosecutor's references to sexual intrusion at sentencing did not constitute plain error or deny due process because sentencing courts may consider broad information about the defendant and the crimes, and the intrusion evidence was contained in the presentence investigation materials and was not contested.
3. Although the undocumented bragging allegation was insufficiently reliable and its introduction without adequate notice constituted a manifest injustice, Deeds did not establish a due process violation because the record did not show that the district court relied on the allegation in imposing sentence.
4. The judgment and sentence did not comply with Wyoming Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(c)(2)(F) because it failed to specify whether the 721 days of presentence confinement credit applied to one or all of the sentenced offenses.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the prosecutor breached the plea agreement by referring at sentencing to elements of first-degree sexual abuse of a minor, the offense to which Deeds did not plead.
2. Whether the prosecutor committed prosecutorial misconduct and denied Deeds due process by referring at sentencing to the intrusion element of the no-longer-charged offense.
3. Whether the prosecutor committed prosecutorial misconduct and denied Deeds due process by presenting undocumented information that Deeds bragged about his conduct in jail for the first time during sentencing.
4. Whether the sentence sufficiently specified the application of presentence confinement credit under Wyoming Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(c)(2)(F).

Disposition

remanded