District court was wrong to deny sentence reduction, Supreme Court finds

Yahoo

4 days ago

CHEYENNE — The Wyoming Supreme Court has ruled that the Laramie County District Court 'abused its discretion' by declining to reduce the sentence of a man convicted of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon.
In 2023, an unidentified district court judge sentenced David Herrera Jr. to five to eight years in prison after he pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon, according to a Supreme Court opinion published June 2.
Along with his sentence, Herrera was referred to the Youthful Offender Transition Program (YOTP) with the understanding that if he completed the program, he would receive a reduction in his sentence.
The offense
Herrera robbed a convenience store in Cheyenne in October 2020. In the course of the robbery, Herrera held the store clerk at knifepoint.
Following DNA evidence and tips from the community, Herrera was arrested in February of 2023 at the Big Horn Motel.
Under a plea agreement, Herrera pleaded guilty to a single count of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon, according to court documents. In turn, the state agreed to dismiss additional charges and argue for a term of no more than five to eight years imprisonment.
The recommended sentence was deemed appropriate because, 'Among other things, Mr. Herrera's crime was violent, the store clerk was traumatized by the robbery and Mr. Herrera committed additional criminal offenses after the robbery,' according to the Supreme Court opinion.
The court then recommended YOTP in addition to the prison time, committing to reduce Herrera's sentence both verbally at the sentencing and in the written judgment and sentencing document.
An opportunity
'It's an opportunity,' the unidentified judge told Herrera at his sentencing. 'Not just to say you're sorry or to say, 'I have a substance abuse problem,' but to work hard inside the Department of Corrections to address the problem, succeed in the youthful offender, and you will get a sentence reduction so that you're back on the street the minimum amount of time.'
Shortly after the sentencing, the judge involved retired, according to court documents. Regardless, Herrera followed through with YOTP and succeeded in the program.
Following his successful completion of the program, Herrera appealed, requesting the court modify his sentence, suspending the remainder of the previously imposed term and putting him on three years of probation.
'In support of his request, Mr. Herrera explained he had been actively participating in the YOTP and how it changed his life for the better, and that he was nearing completion of the program,' Justice Robert Jarosh wrote in the opinion. 'Mr. Herrera also included a letter from the Wyoming Department of Corrections Unit Manager and his caseworker. The letter discussed Mr. Herrera's various accomplishments during his enrollment in the YOTP.'
Despite this, the district court denied the motion, citing the court's discretion in the matter.
The court cited a variety of factors supporting Herrera's incarceration. Specifically, in the state's view, the sentence remained appropriate and 'in line' with the sentencing factors of punishment and deterrence.
'Mr. Herrera's crime had long-lasting and profound impacts on the store clerk he held at knifepoint, and Mr. Herrera's criminal history made him a high risk to commit further criminal offenses,' Justice Jarosh wrote in the opinion, summarizing the court's decision to deny a sentence reduction for Herrera.
The district court did not hold a hearing on Herrera's motion, according to the opinion. On Oct. 2, 2024, the district court entered its Order Denying Motion for Sentence Reduction, which Herrera appealed.
Abused discretion
The state Supreme Court determined that the district court had abused its discretion by not reducing Herrera's sentence, consistent with both written and verbal agreements.
'Given that the district court told Mr. Herrera that he would receive a sentence reduction if he completed the YOTP, it was not reasonable for the district court to deny the motion for sentence reduction without justification,' the court's opinion reads.
Justices added, 'While the change in district court judges may help explain why the prior commitment was not honored, this is one of those rare circumstances where a district court abused its discretion in denying a motion for sentence reduction.'
As a result, the state Supreme Court reversed the district court's decision and determined that further sentencing proceedings were required in Herrera's case, consistent with the court's opinion.