Travis James Wright v. The State of Wyoming ( 2023 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING
2023 WY 122OCTOBER TERM, A.D. 2023
December 19, 2023
TRAVIS JAMES WRIGHT,
Appellant
(Defendant),
v. S-23-0113
THE STATE OF WYOMING,
Appellee
(Plaintiff).
Appeal from the District Court of Carbon County
The Honorable Dawnessa A. Snyder, Judge
Representing Appellant:
Travis James Wright, pro se.
Representing Appellee:
Bridget Hill, Attorney General; Jenny L. Craig, Deputy Attorney General; Kristen
R. Jones, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Donovan Burton, Assistant Attorney
General.
Before FOX, C.J., and KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, GRAY, and FENN, JJ.
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in Pacific Reporter Third. Readers are
requested to notify the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002, of
any typographical or other formal errors so that correction may be made before final publication in the
permanent volume.
FOX, Chief Justice.
[¶1] Travis James Wright pled guilty to two counts of sexual exploitation of children.
The district court imposed two concurrent sentences of eight to ten years. Mr. Wright
appeals the district court’s order denying his pro se motion for sentence reduction. We
affirm.
ISSUE
[¶2] We consolidate and rephrase the four issues Mr. Wright presents on appeal into
one:
1. Did the district court abuse its discretion when it
denied Mr. Wright’s motion for sentence reduction?
FACTS
[¶3] Mr. Wright pled guilty to two counts of sexual exploitation of children. The
district court imposed two concurrent sentences of eight to ten years with credit for time
served. Mr. Wright timely appealed the district court’s sentencing order through private
counsel.
[¶4] The district court appointed the state public defender’s appellate office to
represent Mr. Wright. Mr. Wright voluntarily dismissed his appeal and then filed a timely
motion for sentence modification or reduction through counsel. The district court denied
the motion. Mr. Wright did not appeal that denial.
[¶5] Mr. Wright later filed, pro se, a second motion for sentence reduction. The district
court denied his motion, and Mr. Wright timely appeals.
DISCUSSION
I. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mr. Wright’s motion for
sentence reduction.
[¶6] “We review a district court’s ruling on a motion for a sentence reduction for abuse
of discretion.” Martinson v. State, 2023 WY 88, ¶ 14, 534 P.3d 913, 917 (Wyo. 2023).
The district court has broad discretion in determining whether
to reduce a defendant’s sentence, and we will not disturb its
determination absent an abuse of discretion. The sentencing
judge is in the best position to decide if a sentence
modification is appropriate and is free to accept or reject
1
information submitted in support of a sentence reduction at its
discretion. Our objective on review is not to weigh the
propriety of the sentence if it falls within the sentencing
range; we simply consult the information in front of the court
and consider whether there was a rational basis from which
the district court could reasonably draw its conclusion.
Because of the broad discretion given to the district court in
sentencing, and our significant deference on appeal, this
Court has demonstrated many times in recent years that it is a
very difficult bar for an appellant to leap seeking to overturn a
sentencing decision on an abuse of discretion argument.
Id. at ¶ 14, 534 P.3d at 918 (quoting Harper v. State, 2023 WY 49, ¶ 5, 529 P.3d 1071,
1073 (Wyo. 2023)).
[¶7] Mr. Wright filed his pro se motion for sentence reduction and supported the
motion with personal information, letters of support, and arguments about prosecutorial
misconduct and the proportionality of his sentence. He informed the court of his diverse
support system and participation in prison classes, a recovery group, and work program.
He explained he has not had any disciplinary problems and deeply regrets his actions that
led to incarceration. Mr. Wright claimed the prosecutor committed misconduct during his
sentencing hearing by presenting false or inaccurate information, and the district court
committed misconduct by relying on inaccurate or improper information. He further
challenged the proportionality of his sentence. 1
[¶8] On appeal, Mr. Wright largely restates the arguments he made in his pro se motion
and also raises an ineffective assistance of counsel argument for the first time. The State
argues Mr. Wright has not presented cogent argument because Mr. Wright has not
addressed the only issue properly before this Court; whether the district court abused its
discretion when it denied Mr. Wright’s motion for sentence reduction. We agree with the
State.
1
Mr. Wright’s challenge to the proportionality of his sentence would have been properly brought in the
district court pursuant to a Rule 35(a) motion but not pursuant to the Rule 35(b) motion he filed in this
case. Barrowes v. State, 2019 WY 8, ¶ 21, 432 P.3d 1261, 1267 (Wyo. 2019) (“[A] challenge to the
legality of a sentence is properly brought pursuant to Rule 35(a), not pursuant to Rule 35(b)[.]”) (citing
Davis v. State, 2018 WY 40, ¶ 32, 415 P.3d 666, 678 (Wyo. 2018)). Although Mr. Wright appeals pro se
and “is entitled to ‘a certain leniency’ from the more stringent standards accorded formal pleadings
drafted by lawyers[,]” his appeal of the proportionality of his sentence is not supported by cogent
argument. Osborn v. Emporium Videos, 848 P.2d 237, 240 (Wyo. 1993) (quoting Apodaca v. Ommen,
807 P.2d 939, 943 (Wyo. 1991)); Pier v. State, 2019 WY 3, ¶ 26, 432 P.3d 890, 898 (Wyo. 2019) (“We
do not address arguments not supported by cogent argument or citation to pertinent authority.”) (citing
Blevins v. State, 2017 WY 43, ¶ 22, 393 P.3d 1249, 1254 (Wyo. 2017)). We thus will not consider this
challenge.
2
[¶9] The Wyoming Rules of Criminal Procedure address a motion for a sentence
reduction. W.R.Cr.P. 35(b). “The purpose of Rule 35(b) is to give a convicted defendant
a second opportunity to reduce his sentence by presenting additional information and
argument to the sentencing judge.” Chapman v. State, 2015 WY 15, ¶ 11, 342 P.3d 388,
392 (Wyo. 2015) (citing Boucher v. State, 2012 WY 145, ¶ 10, 288 P.3d 427, 430 (Wyo.
2012)). A Rule 35(b) motion has a “narrow function.” Harper, 2023 WY 49, ¶ 6, 529
P.3d at 1073. It “cannot be used to attack the validity of a conviction, nor may it be used
as a substitute for a properly filed appeal.” Id. (quoting Mack v. State, 7 P.3d 899, 900
(Wyo. 2000)). A defendant may not use Rule 35(b) to “re-examine errors occurring at the
trial or other proceedings prior to the imposition of the sentence.” Id. (quoting Smith v.
State, 969 P.2d 1136, 1137-38 (Wyo. 1998)).
[¶10] Considering the arguments Mr. Wright presented to the district court in his pro se
motion, we find the district court did not abuse its discretion. The bulk of Mr. Wright’s
arguments; namely his claims of judicial and prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective
assistance of counsel; were not supported by cogent argument and are not proper under a
Rule 35(b) motion. Instead, Mr. Wright used his motion for sentence reduction as a
substitute for a properly filed appeal, to attack the validity of his conviction, and to re-
examine alleged errors that occurred at the sentencing hearing. We therefore “decline to
address [Mr. Wright’s] claims because they are not properly before this Court.” Harper,
2023 WY 49, ¶ 7, 529 P.3d at 1073.
[¶11] While we commend Mr. Wright for his rehabilitation and treatment efforts as well
as his acknowledgment of regret, “productive behavior alone does not require the district
court to grant [him] a sentence reduction.” Hart v. State, 2016 WY 28, ¶ 10, 368 P.3d
877, 879 (Wyo. 2016) (citing Chapman, 2015 WY 15, ¶ 18, 342 P.3d at 394). This Court
has “long held the view that it would be unwise to usurp what is properly a function of
the district courts by finding an abuse of discretion in denying a sentence reduction
motion simply because it was supported by evidence of a defendant’s commendable
conduct while incarcerated.” Id. (quoting Conkle v. State, 2013 WY 1, ¶ 14, 291 P.3d
313, 315 (Wyo. 2013)). The district court “is in the best position to decide if a sentence
modification is appropriate and is free to accept or reject information submitted in
support of a sentence reduction at its discretion,” so we do not substitute our judgment for
that of the district court. Harper, 2023 WY 49, ¶ 8, 529 P.3d at 1074 (quoting Hall v.
State, 2018 WY 91, ¶ 18, 423 P.3d 329, 333 (Wyo. 2018)).
[¶12] We find the district court did not abuse its discretion. Affirmed.
3