Van Riper v. State

Citations: 999 P.2d 646; 2000 WL 266392Docket: 98-339, 98-340

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court; March 13, 2000; Wyoming; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Courtney James Van Riper appealed a decision from the district court regarding restitution and sentencing. The Supreme Court of Wyoming found that the restitution ordered related to a charge for which Van Riper was not convicted, making it improper, and thus reversed that part of the ruling. However, the court upheld the district court's discretion in determining Van Riper's prison sentence but remanded the case for the district court to provide additional findings as required by W.R.Cr. P. 32(a)(3)(C).

Van Riper raised two main issues: first, that the district court abused its discretion by ordering restitution for a dismissed charge not included in his plea agreement; second, that his due process rights were violated by the court's non-compliance with procedural rules. The state contended that the restitution for personal belongings in a vehicle stolen by Van Riper was appropriate, and also questioned whether there was a due process violation.

The facts indicated that Van Riper had escaped from a detention center and committed various thefts, including stealing vehicles. He was charged with multiple counts, but several were dismissed prior to his guilty plea to escape and burglary. As part of the plea deal, he was to pay restitution for the stolen vehicles and other items, but the restitution related to the dismissed charge was contested. The initial sentencing hearing was delayed due to Van Riper not receiving the presentence investigation report.

Van Riper contested inaccuracies in his sentencing report during a second hearing, which was postponed due to his not receiving the report as mandated by W.R.Cr. P. 32(a)(3)(A). At a third hearing on October 26, 1998, the district court sentenced him to consecutive prison terms of six to nine years and four to six years, running concurrently with his existing sentence. Additionally, he was ordered to pay $2,032 in restitution for personal items taken from a pickup truck. Van Riper appealed this decision.

The appellate standard for reviewing sentencing decisions allows for interference only in cases of abuse of discretion, procedural prejudice, or inherent unfairness. Van Riper argued that the court lacked authority to impose restitution for the items from the pickup since he had not been convicted of or pleaded guilty to stealing them. According to Wyoming law, restitution is mandated upon conviction for any crime, defined as including only crimes to which the defendant has pleaded guilty or admitted. Van Riper had pleaded guilty to burglary but denied taking items from the pickup, which led to the dismissal of that charge. Consequently, the appellate court concluded that the district court was unauthorized to impose restitution for the pickup's items and reversed that aspect of the sentence. 

The court noted that while it could have ordered restitution for vehicle losses, it declined due to insufficient information. The appellate court emphasized that it would not remand for a reassessment of restitution to avoid violating Van Riper’s double jeopardy protections. Thus, it upheld the principle that once a sentence is entered, it cannot be increased or altered to include restitution later.

Van Riper asserts that his due process rights were violated by the district court's reliance on inaccurate information in the presentence investigation report and its failure to comply with W.R.Cr. P. 32(a)(3)(C). He claims the court ignored his corrections to the report. However, the record indicates the court thoroughly considered his corrections and noted them. As Van Riper did not demonstrate that the court relied on false information, the court's discretion was upheld.

Regarding W.R.Cr. P. 32(a)(3)(C), Van Riper argues that the court failed to make the required findings and determinations. The state contends that the court complied by annotating its findings on the report. Citing a precedent, the court noted that while a written record of the court's findings was not attached, it could be remedied through a limited remand to append the necessary documentation. The current record shows that while the court considered Van Riper's corrections, it did not provide the mandated findings. Thus, the case is remanded for the court to append the complete findings and determinations as required. The decision is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with specific instructions.