Mason v. State

27 Citing cases

  1. Mapp v. State

    929 P.2d 1222 (Wyo. 1996)   Cited 21 times

    This includes the right to disclosure of the evidence against the defendant, the right to call witnesses and present documentary evidence, and the conditional right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses. Swackhammer v. State, 808 P.2d 219, 221-22 (Wyo. 1991); Mason v. State, 631 P.2d 1051, 1055 (Wyo. 1981). "The determination of whether the defendant violated his release agreement must be based on verified facts."

  2. Gailey v. State

    882 P.2d 888 (Wyo. 1994)   Cited 23 times

    Probation revocation procedures are governed by the Fourteenth Amendment right to due process and by Wyoming statutory and case law. Mason v. State, 631 P.2d 1051, 1055 (Wyo. 1981). In Mason, 631 P.2d at 1055, this court established a two-part probation revocation procedure based on the United States Supreme Court's rulings in Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 488-89, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 2603-04, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972) (due process in parole revocation procedures) and Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 782, 791, 93 S.Ct. 1756, 1760, 1764, 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973) (applying Morrissey to probation revocation procedures).

  3. Wlodarczyk v. State

    836 P.2d 279 (Wyo. 1992)   Cited 14 times
    In Wlodarczyk v. State, 836 P.2d 279 (Wyo. 1992), this Court discussed the resentencing options which are available to a district court after a criminal defendant's probation has been revoked.

    THE GENERAL LAW OF PROBATION REVOCATION In Mason v. State, 631 P.2d 1051, 1055 (Wyo. 1981), this court examined the controlling principles governing probation revocation: The law governing probation revocation is controlled by the Fourteenth Amendment right to due process under the law, as well as by Wyoming statute and case law.

  4. Swackhammer v. State

    808 P.2d 219 (Wyo. 1991)   Cited 15 times

    The protections articulated in § 7-13-408, W.S. 1977 (June 1987 Repl.), are intended to apply in administrative revocation proceedings but, by decisions of this court, they have been extended, with the exception of the separate preliminary hearing requirement, to proceedings in which the court acts on a petition for revocation filed by a county attorney or the Board of Probation and Parole. Mason v. State, 631 P.2d 1051 (Wyo. 1981); Weisser v. State, 600 P.2d 1320 (Wyo. 1979); Knobel v. State, 576 P.2d 941 (Wyo. 1978).See Cooney v. Park County, 792 P.2d 1287 (Wyo. 1990).

  5. State v. Decoteau

    182 Vt. 433 (Vt. 2007)   Cited 23 times
    Concluding that because the defendant failed to object to testimony at the time it was presented, he failed to preserve any objection on appeal

    He was unable, however, to effectively rebut the hearsay allegations because he could not question witnesses to determine which behavior they deemed threatening or to ascertain when he had violated rules. See Mason v. State, 631 P.2d 1051, 1055 (Wyo. 1981) (noting that it is impossible for the defendant to test the accuracy of statements made by state's witnesses if they are not available to testify and finding plain error where defendant was unable to demonstrate alternative theory). Thus, in considering these factors, we conclude that none demonstrate that the evidence was reliable.

  6. BECK v. TOWNSEND

    2005 WY 84 (Wyo. 2005)   Cited 2 times

    To qualify as plain error, there must be (1) a clear record of what happened at the hearing, (2) a clear and unequivocal rule of law shown to exist, and (3) the facts of the case must clearly and obviously transgress such rule. Mason v. State, 631 P.2d 1051, 1057 (Wyo. 1981); Westmark v. State, 693 P.2d 220 (Wyo. 1984). We have here a clear record of what happened procedurally (part of such clear record is the fact that the occurrence was not made a part of the trial record).

  7. Krow v. State

    840 P.2d 261 (Wyo. 1992)   Cited 13 times

    The procedures governing probation revocation are now outlined in substantially greater detail by Wyo.R.Crim.P. 39. While the process due a probationer does not necessarily include both a preliminary and a final revocation hearing, it does include the right to reasonable notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard. See, e.g., Swackhammer v. State, 808 P.2d 219 (Wyo. 1991); Mason v. State, 631 P.2d 1051 (Wyo. 1981). In this case, appellant was notified of the probation violations alleged against him.

  8. Pisano v. Shillinger

    835 P.2d 1136 (Wyo. 1992)   Cited 13 times
    In Pisano v. Shillinger, 835 P.2d 1136, 1138 (Wyo. 1992), the Wyoming Supreme Court held this statute prohibited judicial review only of the Wyoming Board of Parole's "conduct" of a parole revocation hearing, which allows the Board to use hearing procedures that are not consistent with the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act, provided the Board's procedures do not violate the Wyoming or United States Constitutions.

    As a result of the Supreme Court's decision in Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972), no doubt exists that a parolee's conditional liberty is subject to certain due process protections. See Mason v. State, 631 P.2d 1051, 1055 (Wyo. 1981), and Wyo. Stat. § 7-13-408 (1987). We have recognized that the right to judicial review of an administrative decision is entirely statutory.

  9. Schmidt v. State

    738 P.2d 1105 (Wyo. 1987)   Cited 9 times
    In Schmidt, 738 P.2d at 1108, we concluded that "[t]here was ample evidence, most of which was not denied, to justify revocation.

    Thus, defending counsel had only the weekend to travel to Torrington and to prepare to present his client's case to the court — only a weekend to prepare to represent an appellant who was facing action which could result in penitentiary confinement of between eight and 14 years. Appellant now properly claims that the trial court, by failing to give counsel adequate time to prepare for the revocation hearing, denied due process guaranteed to him by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Mason v. State, Wyo., 631 P.2d 1051, 1055 (1981). The utilized process also requires review under the due-process provision, Art. 1, § 6 of the Wyoming Constitution, and the right to defend guaranteed by Art. 1, § 10 of the Wyoming Constitution.

  10. Fredrick v. State

    2024 WY 121 (Wyo. 2024)   Cited 1 times

    [¶23] Our precedent recognizes that probation revocations are not criminal prosecutions subject to the "full panoply of rights available under the Sixth Amendment[.]" Robinson v. State, 2016 WY 90, ¶ 34, 378 P.3d 599, 608 (Wyo. 2016) (citing Mason v. State, 631 P.2d 1051, 1055 (Wyo. 1981)); Counts v. State, 2008 WY 156, ¶ 13, 197 P.3d 1280, 1284 (Wyo. 2008) (citations omitted); see also Peterson v. State, 2024 WY 107, ¶ 8, -P.3d- (Wyo. 2024) (citations omitted). We have stated a probation revocation hearing is "simply an extension of the sentencing procedure resulting from the conviction of the basic charge" rather than a "trial on a new criminal charge."