change of plea hearing in Wyoming

2026Because the plea agreement in this case was not reduced to a specific written document, “we must look to the recitation of the plea agreement given at the change of plea hearing to determine the terms of the agreement.” Ford v. State, 2003 WY 65, ¶ 12 , 69 P.3d 407, 411 (Wyo. 2003); see also Noel, ¶ 18, 319 P.3d at 142 (relying on the district court’s colloquy with the defendant in determining what consideration was offered in exchange for the change of plea); and Henry v. State, 2015 WY 156, ¶ 14 , 362 P.3d 785, 789 (Wyo. 2015) (reviewing the plea agreement “as recited by the parties at the c

2026Because the plea agreement in this case was not reduced to a specific written document, “we must look to the recitation of the plea agreement given at the change of plea hearing to determine the terms of the agreement.” Ford v. State, 2003 WY 65, ¶ 12 , 69 P.3d 407, 411 (Wyo. 2003); see also Noel, ¶ 18, 319 P.3d at 142 (relying on the district court’s colloquy with the defendant in determining what consideration was offered in exchange for the change of plea); and Henry v. State, 2015 WY 156, ¶ 14 , 362 P.3d 785, 789 (Wyo. 2015) (reviewing the plea agreement “as recited by the parties at the c

2024Delgado, ¶ 42, 509 P.3d at 926 (citing Dobbins v. State, 2012 WY 110, ¶ 62 , 298 P.3d 807, 824 (Wyo. 2012); Major, ¶ 11, 83 P.3d at 472 ; and Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 755 , 90 S.Ct. 1463, 1472 , 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970)) (other citations and quotation marks omitted). [¶52] At the change of plea hearing, the district court reviewed with Mr. Keller the charge, the rights he would waive if he pleaded guilty, the terms of the plea agreement, and the potential consequences of his plea.

2022See, e.g., Steffey, ¶¶ 21-28, 449 P.3d at 1105-07 (reviewing the transcript of the change of plea proceedings); Kruger v. State, 2012 WY 2, ¶ 39 , 268 P.3d 248, 256 (Wyo. 2012) (quoting the district court’s recount of what took place at the change of plea hearing); Major, ¶ 18, 83 P.3d at 474-77 (providing a detailed description of the testimony at the change of plea hearing). [¶46] Moreover, Mr. Delgado did not provide any evidence showing he was unable to understand or consent to the plea.

2026McNair v. Beck, 2024 WY 85, ¶ 33 , 553 P.3d 771, 781 (Wyo. 2024) (citing Grove v. Pfister, 2005 WY 51, ¶ 6 , 110 P.3d 275, 278 (Wyo. 2005)). [¶15] “A plea agreement is a contract between the State and the defendant to which we apply general principles of contract law.” Wells v. State, 2026 WY 37, ¶ 15 , 587 P.3d 3 The district court found the agreement “was never reduced to writing and filed with the [c]ourt[.]” Though no copy of the plea agreement is found in the record, the district court did state at the change of plea hearing that it had a copy of the plea agreement. 4 106, 109–10 (Wyo. 20

2026McNair v. Beck, 2024 WY 85, ¶ 33 , 553 P.3d 771, 781 (Wyo. 2024) (citing Grove v. Pfister, 2005 WY 51, ¶ 6 , 110 P.3d 275, 278 (Wyo. 2005)). [¶15] “A plea agreement is a contract between the State and the defendant to which we apply general principles of contract law.” Wells v. State, 2026 WY 37, ¶ 15 , 587 P.3d 3 The district court found the agreement “was never reduced to writing and filed with the [c]ourt[.]” Though no copy of the plea agreement is found in the record, the district court did state at the change of plea hearing that it had a copy of the plea agreement. 4 106, 109–10 (Wyo. 20

2026The district court was never given an opportunity to rule on Mr. McCalla’s second motion to compel production of law enforcement reports. [¶35] Although a conditional plea of no contest pursuant to W.R.Cr.P. 11(a)(2) provides a mechanism for appellate review, it “does not ‘provide carte blanche permission for an appellant to present any and all arguments on appeal.’” Ray v. State, 2018 WY 146 , ¶ 14, 432 P.3d 872, 876 (Wyo. 2018) (quoting Kunselman, 2008 WY 85, ¶ 11 , 188 P.3d at 570 ).

2026The district court was never given an opportunity to rule on Mr. McCalla’s second motion to compel production of law enforcement reports. [¶35] Although a conditional plea of no contest pursuant to W.R.Cr.P. 11(a)(2) provides a mechanism for appellate review, it “does not ‘provide carte blanche permission for an appellant to present any and all arguments on appeal.’” Ray v. State, 2018 WY 146 , ¶ 14, 432 P.3d 872, 876 (Wyo. 2018) (quoting Kunselman, 2008 WY 85, ¶ 11 , 188 P.3d at 570 ).

2007See also, Follett v. State, 2006 WY 47, ¶ 23 , 132 P.3d 1155, 1163 (Wyo.2006) (recognizing that Rule 11 does not require the court to give the defendant advice at the change of plea hearing that has previously been given on the record and in the presence of counsel). [110] The colloquy at the hearing when Mr. Thomas changed his plea to no contest to the three counts for which he ultimately was sentenced was quite short.

2007See also, Follett v. State, 2006 WY 47, ¶ 23 , 132 P.3d 1155, 1163 (Wyo.2006) (recognizing that Rule 11 does not require the court to give the defendant advice at the change of plea hearing that has previously been given on the record and in the presence of counsel). [110] The colloquy at the hearing when Mr. Thomas changed his plea to no contest to the three counts for which he ultimately was sentenced was quite short.

2006As we recognized in McCarty v. State, 883 P.2d 367, 373 (Wyo.1994), “[t]he language of W.R.Cr.P. 11(b) no longer requires the district court to perfunctorily repeat information on rights and consequences which has previously been conveyed during arraignment or during other on the record proceedings in the presence of counsel.” The following colloquy occurred at the change of plea hearing: THE COURT: I note the presence of the Defendant in the courtroom today.

1998McCarty , at 373, recognizes Rule ll(b)’s new emphasis on substance over form; the perfunctory repetition of information is not the goal.

2022See, e.g., Steffey, ¶¶ 21-28, 449 P.3d at 1105-07 (reviewing the transcript of the change of plea proceedings); Kruger v. State, 2012 WY 2, ¶ 39 , 268 P.3d 248, 256 (Wyo. 2012) (quoting the district court’s recount of what took place at the change of plea hearing); Major, ¶ 18, 83 P.3d at 474-77 (providing a detailed description of the testimony at the change of plea hearing). [¶46] Moreover, Mr. Delgado did not provide any evidence showing he was unable to understand or consent to the plea.

2022See, e.g., Steffey, ¶¶ 21-28, 449 P.3d at 1105-07 (reviewing the transcript of the change of plea proceedings); Kruger v. State, 2012 WY 2, ¶ 39 , 268 P.3d 248, 256 (Wyo. 2012) (quoting the district court’s recount of what took place at the change of plea hearing); Major, ¶ 18, 83 P.3d at 474-77 (providing a detailed description of the testimony at the change of plea hearing). [¶46] Moreover, Mr. Delgado did not provide any evidence showing he was unable to understand or consent to the plea.

2026McNair v. Beck, 2024 WY 85, ¶ 33 , 553 P.3d 771, 781 (Wyo. 2024) (citing Grove v. Pfister, 2005 WY 51, ¶ 6 , 110 P.3d 275, 278 (Wyo. 2005)). [¶15] “A plea agreement is a contract between the State and the defendant to which we apply general principles of contract law.” Wells v. State, 2026 WY 37, ¶ 15 , 587 P.3d 3 The district court found the agreement “was never reduced to writing and filed with the [c]ourt[.]” Though no copy of the plea agreement is found in the record, the district court did state at the change of plea hearing that it had a copy of the plea agreement. 4 106, 109–10 (Wyo. 20

2026McNair v. Beck, 2024 WY 85, ¶ 33 , 553 P.3d 771, 781 (Wyo. 2024) (citing Grove v. Pfister, 2005 WY 51, ¶ 6 , 110 P.3d 275, 278 (Wyo. 2005)). [¶15] “A plea agreement is a contract between the State and the defendant to which we apply general principles of contract law.” Wells v. State, 2026 WY 37, ¶ 15 , 587 P.3d 3 The district court found the agreement “was never reduced to writing and filed with the [c]ourt[.]” Though no copy of the plea agreement is found in the record, the district court did state at the change of plea hearing that it had a copy of the plea agreement. 4 106, 109–10 (Wyo. 20

2026McNair v. Beck, 2024 WY 85, ¶ 33 , 553 P.3d 771, 781 (Wyo. 2024) (citing Grove v. Pfister, 2005 WY 51, ¶ 6 , 110 P.3d 275, 278 (Wyo. 2005)). [¶15] “A plea agreement is a contract between the State and the defendant to which we apply general principles of contract law.” Wells v. State, 2026 WY 37, ¶ 15 , 587 P.3d 3 The district court found the agreement “was never reduced to writing and filed with the [c]ourt[.]” Though no copy of the plea agreement is found in the record, the district court did state at the change of plea hearing that it had a copy of the plea agreement. 4 106, 109–10 (Wyo. 20

2026Because the plea agreement in this case was not reduced to a specific written document, “we must look to the recitation of the plea agreement given at the change of plea hearing to determine the terms of the agreement.” Ford v. State, 2003 WY 65, ¶ 12 , 69 P.3d 407, 411 (Wyo. 2003); see also Noel, ¶ 18, 319 P.3d at 142 (relying on the district court’s colloquy with the defendant in determining what consideration was offered in exchange for the change of plea); and Henry v. State, 2015 WY 156, ¶ 14 , 362 P.3d 785, 789 (Wyo. 2015) (reviewing the plea agreement “as recited by the parties at the c

2026Because the plea agreement in this case was not reduced to a specific written document, “we must look to the recitation of the plea agreement given at the change of plea hearing to determine the terms of the agreement.” Ford v. State, 2003 WY 65, ¶ 12 , 69 P.3d 407, 411 (Wyo. 2003); see also Noel, ¶ 18, 319 P.3d at 142 (relying on the district court’s colloquy with the defendant in determining what consideration was offered in exchange for the change of plea); and Henry v. State, 2015 WY 156, ¶ 14 , 362 P.3d 785, 789 (Wyo. 2015) (reviewing the plea agreement “as recited by the parties at the c

2026When a court rejects a plea agreement, it shall inform the parties on the record, advise the defendant that the court is not bound by the agreement and “afford the defendant the opportunity to then withdraw the plea.” W.R.Cr.P. 11(e)(4) (“Rejection of Agreement”); see also Frederick v. State, 2007 WY 27, ¶ 21 , 151 P.3d 1136, 1143 (Wyo. 2007) (recognizing courts must provide the defendant an opportunity to withdraw a rejected sentence specific plea deal).

2026When a court rejects a plea agreement, it shall inform the parties on the record, advise the defendant that the court is not bound by the agreement and “afford the defendant the opportunity to then withdraw the plea.” W.R.Cr.P. 11(e)(4) (“Rejection of Agreement”); see also Frederick v. State, 2007 WY 27, ¶ 21 , 151 P.3d 1136, 1143 (Wyo. 2007) (recognizing courts must provide the defendant an opportunity to withdraw a rejected sentence specific plea deal).

2026Because the plea agreement in this case was not reduced to a specific written document, “we must look to the recitation of the plea agreement given at the change of plea hearing to determine the terms of the agreement.” Ford v. State, 2003 WY 65, ¶ 12 , 69 P.3d 407, 411 (Wyo. 2003); see also Noel, ¶ 18, 319 P.3d at 142 (relying on the district court’s colloquy with the defendant in determining what consideration was offered in exchange for the change of plea); and Henry v. State, 2015 WY 156, ¶ 14 , 362 P.3d 785, 789 (Wyo. 2015) (reviewing the plea agreement “as recited by the parties at the c

2026Because the plea agreement in this case was not reduced to a specific written document, “we must look to the recitation of the plea agreement given at the change of plea hearing to determine the terms of the agreement.” Ford v. State, 2003 WY 65, ¶ 12, 69 P.3d 407, 411 (Wyo. 2003); see also Noel, ¶ 18, 319 P.3d at 142 (relying on the district court’s colloquy with the defendant in determining what consideration was offered in exchange for the change of plea); and Henry v. State, 2015 WY 156, ¶ 14, 362 P.3d 785, 789 (Wyo. 2015) (reviewing the plea agreement “as recited by the parties at the cha

2025Regardless of whether the district court intended to hold Mr. Goetz in civil or criminal contempt at the change of plea hearing, it never signed a written judgment of contempt that was entered of record. 7 [¶20] We have recognized “[u]ntil a final order is entered, a court is free to change its mind.” Pond v. Pond, 2009 WY 134 , ¶ 12 n.1, 218 P.3d 650 , 653 n.1 (Wyo. 2009) (citing Forbis v. Forbis, 2009 WY 41, ¶ 8 , 203 P.3d 421, 423 (Wyo. 2009)) (holding the decision letter was superseded by the final order because it was not incorporated into the final order).

2025Regardless of whether the district court intended to hold Mr. Goetz in civil or criminal contempt at the change of plea hearing, it never signed a written judgment of contempt that was entered of record. 7 [¶20] We have recognized “[u]ntil a final order is entered, a court is free to change its mind.” Pond v. Pond, 2009 WY 134 , ¶ 12 n.1, 218 P.3d 650 , 653 n.1 (Wyo. 2009) (citing Forbis v. Forbis, 2009 WY 41, ¶ 8 , 203 P.3d 421, 423 (Wyo. 2009)) (holding the decision letter was superseded by the final order because it was not incorporated into the final order).

2024Delgado, ¶ 42, 509 P.3d at 926 (citing Dobbins v. State, 2012 WY 110, ¶ 62 , 298 P.3d 807, 824 (Wyo. 2012); Major, ¶ 11, 83 P.3d at 472 ; and Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 755 , 90 S.Ct. 1463, 1472 , 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970)) (other citations and quotation marks omitted). [¶52] At the change of plea hearing, the district court reviewed with Mr. Keller the charge, the rights he would waive if he pleaded guilty, the terms of the plea agreement, and the potential consequences of his plea.

2024Delgado, ¶ 42, 509 P.3d at 926 (citing Dobbins v. State, 2012 WY 110, ¶ 62 , 298 P.3d 807, 824 (Wyo. 2012); Major, ¶ 11, 83 P.3d at 472 ; and Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 755 , 90 S.Ct. 1463, 1472 , 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970)) (other citations and quotation marks omitted). [¶52] At the change of plea hearing, the district court reviewed with Mr. Keller the charge, the rights he would waive if he pleaded guilty, the terms of the plea agreement, and the potential consequences of his plea.

2024“A sufficient inquiry includes a determination that the defendant understood [her] conduct, in light of the law, to be criminal.” Beeson, ¶ 8, 512 P.3d at 990 (quoting Sami v. State, 2004 WY 23, ¶ 9 , 85 P.3d 1014, 1017 (Wyo. 2004)). [¶14] Because we have a transcript of the change of plea hearing, the factual basis appears in the record.

2024“A sufficient inquiry includes a determination that the defendant understood [her] conduct, in light of the law, to be criminal.” Beeson, ¶ 8, 512 P.3d at 990 (quoting Sami v. State, 2004 WY 23, ¶ 9 , 85 P.3d 1014, 1017 (Wyo. 2004)). [¶14] Because we have a transcript of the change of plea hearing, the factual basis appears in the record.

2022To hold otherwise would create an impossible burden in a case requiring a finding of specific intent.” Bittleston v. State, 2019 WY 64 , ¶ 25, 442 P.3d 1287, 1294 (Wyo. 2019) (quoting Jones v. State, 2012 WY 82, ¶ 27 , 278 P.3d 729, 736 (Wyo. 2012)). [¶14] The actions Mr. Beeson admitted to at the change of plea hearing reflect an intent to harass KW.

2022See, e.g., Steffey, ¶¶ 21-28, 449 P.3d at 1105-07 (reviewing the transcript of the change of plea proceedings); Kruger v. State, 2012 WY 2, ¶ 39 , 268 P.3d 248, 256 (Wyo. 2012) (quoting the district court’s recount of what took place at the change of plea hearing); Major, ¶ 18, 83 P.3d at 474-77 (providing a detailed description of the testimony at the change of plea hearing). [¶46] Moreover, Mr. Delgado did not provide any evidence showing he was unable to understand or consent to the plea.

2022To hold otherwise would create an impossible burden in a case requiring a finding of specific intent.” Bittleston v. State, 2019 WY 64 , ¶ 25, 442 P.3d 1287, 1294 (Wyo. 2019) (quoting Jones v. State, 2012 WY 82, ¶ 27 , 278 P.3d 729, 736 (Wyo. 2012)). [¶14] The actions Mr. Beeson admitted to at the change of plea hearing reflect an intent to harass KW.

2022To hold otherwise would create an impossible burden in a case requiring a finding of specific intent.” Bittleston v. State, 2019 WY 64 , ¶ 25, 442 P.3d 1287, 1294 (Wyo. 2019) (quoting Jones v. State, 2012 WY 82, ¶ 27 , 278 P.3d 729, 736 (Wyo. 2012)). [¶14] The actions Mr. Beeson admitted to at the change of plea hearing reflect an intent to harass KW.

2021In Nguyen v. State, 2013 WY 50, ¶ 11 , 299 P.3d 683, 686 (Wyo. 2013) (internal citation omitted), we quoted Maes v. State, 2005 WY 70, ¶ 21 , 114 P.3d 708, 714 (Wyo. 2005), for the following principles: [T]he factual basis for accepting a plea may be inferred from circumstances surrounding the crime and need not be established only from the defendant’s statements.

2021In Nguyen v. State, 2013 WY 50, ¶ 11 , 299 P.3d 683, 686 (Wyo. 2013) (internal citation omitted), we quoted Maes v. State, 2005 WY 70, ¶ 21 , 114 P.3d 708, 714 (Wyo. 2005), for the following principles: [T]he factual basis for accepting a plea may be inferred from circumstances surrounding the crime and need not be established only from the defendant’s statements.

2021Mr. Stanger conceded he had been convicted of “at least two” prior convictions for possession of marijuana in O’Fallon, occurring in 2005 and 2006. 3 P.3d at 109.

2021In Nguyen v. State, 2013 WY 50, ¶ 11 , 299 P.3d 683, 686 (Wyo. 2013) (internal citation omitted), we quoted Maes v. State, 2005 WY 70, ¶ 21 , 114 P.3d 708, 714 (Wyo. 2005), for the following principles: [T]he factual basis for accepting a plea may be inferred from circumstances surrounding the crime and need not be established only from the defendant’s statements.

2021In Nguyen v. State, 2013 WY 50, ¶ 11 , 299 P.3d 683, 686 (Wyo. 2013) (internal citation omitted), we quoted Maes v. State, 2005 WY 70, ¶ 21 , 114 P.3d 708, 714 (Wyo. 2005), for the following principles: [T]he factual basis for accepting a plea may be inferred from circumstances surrounding the crime and need not be established only from the defendant’s statements.

2019See Grove, ¶ 6, 110 P.3d at 278 (“[a]n abuse of discretion can exist if . . . the correct law has been applied but incorrectly interpreted, or if the correct law has been improperly applied” (emphasis added)); see also, Finley Res., Inc., ¶ 7, 443 P.3d at 842 .11 10 The district court emphasized Mr. Steffey’s claim at the change of plea hearing to be satisfied with counsel.

2019The State argues that while Mr. Steffey showed some confusion on two “minor” matters, the court 7 Mr. Steffey’s no contest plea is the functional equivalent of a nolo contendere plea and, for purposes of our review, “a nolo contendere plea is functionally equivalent to a guilty plea.” Major, ¶ 11, 83 P.3d at 472 (citing Becker v. State, 2002 WY 126, ¶ 11 , 53 P.3d 94, 98 (Wyo. 2002)); Johnson v. State, 6 P.3d 1261 , 1262 n.1 (Wyo. 2000).

2019The State argues that while Mr. Steffey showed some confusion on two “minor” matters, the court 7 Mr. Steffey’s no contest plea is the functional equivalent of a nolo contendere plea and, for purposes of our review, “a nolo contendere plea is functionally equivalent to a guilty plea.” Major, ¶ 11, 83 P.3d at 472 (citing Becker v. State, 2002 WY 126, ¶ 11 , 53 P.3d 94, 98 (Wyo. 2002)); Johnson v. State, 6 P.3d 1261 , 1262 n.1 (Wyo. 2000).

2019See Frame, ¶ 7, 29 P.3d at 89 (“A defendant has no absolute right to withdraw a plea of guilty before sentence is imposed, and where the strictures of W.R.Cr.P. 11 have been met, and the defendant intelligently, knowingly, and voluntarily entered into his plea of guilty, the district court’s decision to deny such a motion is within its sound discretion.” (Emphasis added) (citing Burdine v. State, 974 P.2d 927, 929-30 (Wyo. 1999); 3 Charles Alan Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure: Criminal 2d § 538 (1982 and Supp. 2001))).

2019Because Mr. Steffey had not alleged the plea colloquy was inadequate under W.R.Cr.P. 11, the court analyzed whether Mr. Steffey had established a “fair and just reason” to withdraw his plea under W.R.Cr.P. 32(d), using the factors we outlined in Frame v. State, 2001 WY 72, ¶ 7 , 29 P.3d 86, 89 (Wyo. 2001).

2019Because Mr. Steffey had not alleged the plea colloquy was inadequate under W.R.Cr.P. 11, the court analyzed whether Mr. Steffey had established a “fair and just reason” to withdraw his plea under W.R.Cr.P. 32(d), using the factors we outlined in Frame v. State, 2001 WY 72, ¶ 7 , 29 P.3d 86, 89 (Wyo. 2001).