wide variety factors in Wyoming

2023See also, Kelley v. State, 2009 WY 3, ¶ 7 , 199 P.3d 521, 523 (Wyo. 2009) (“Sentencing decisions generally are subject to review for an abuse of discretion.” (citing Smith v. State, 941 P.2d 749, 750 (Wyo. 1997))). [¶31] “When imposing sentence, the trial court is given broad discretion to consider a wide variety of factors about the defendant and his crimes.” Manes v. State, 2004 WY 70, ¶ 9 , 92 P.3d 289, 292 (Wyo. 2004) (citing Mehring v. State, 860 P.2d 1101, 1115 (Wyo. 1993), and Griebel v. State, 763 P.2d 475, 477 (Wyo. 1988)).

2010We have also said that, "in imposing sentence, the trial court is given broad discretion to consider a wide variety of factors about the defendant and his crimes." Mehring v. State, 860 P.2d 1101, 1115 (Wyo.1993).

2023See also, Kelley v. State, 2009 WY 3, ¶ 7 , 199 P.3d 521, 523 (Wyo. 2009) (“Sentencing decisions generally are subject to review for an abuse of discretion.” (citing Smith v. State, 941 P.2d 749, 750 (Wyo. 1997))). [¶31] “When imposing sentence, the trial court is given broad discretion to consider a wide variety of factors about the defendant and his crimes.” Manes v. State, 2004 WY 70, ¶ 9 , 92 P.3d 289, 292 (Wyo. 2004) (citing Mehring v. State, 860 P.2d 1101, 1115 (Wyo. 1993), and Griebel v. State, 763 P.2d 475, 477 (Wyo. 1988)).

2012Mehring v. State, 860 P.2d 1101, 1115 (Wyo.1998); Griebel v. State, 763 P.2d 475, 477 (Wyo.1988).

2023See also, Kelley v. State, 2009 WY 3, ¶ 7 , 199 P.3d 521, 523 (Wyo. 2009) (“Sentencing decisions generally are subject to review for an abuse of discretion.” (citing Smith v. State, 941 P.2d 749, 750 (Wyo. 1997))). [¶31] “When imposing sentence, the trial court is given broad discretion to consider a wide variety of factors about the defendant and his crimes.” Manes v. State, 2004 WY 70, ¶ 9 , 92 P.3d 289, 292 (Wyo. 2004) (citing Mehring v. State, 860 P.2d 1101, 1115 (Wyo. 1993), and Griebel v. State, 763 P.2d 475, 477 (Wyo. 1988)).

2023See also, Kelley v. State, 2009 WY 3, ¶ 7 , 199 P.3d 521, 523 (Wyo. 2009) (“Sentencing decisions generally are subject to review for an abuse of discretion.” (citing Smith v. State, 941 P.2d 749, 750 (Wyo. 1997))). [¶31] “When imposing sentence, the trial court is given broad discretion to consider a wide variety of factors about the defendant and his crimes.” Manes v. State, 2004 WY 70, ¶ 9 , 92 P.3d 289, 292 (Wyo. 2004) (citing Mehring v. State, 860 P.2d 1101, 1115 (Wyo. 1993), and Griebel v. State, 763 P.2d 475, 477 (Wyo. 1988)).

2026See Frederick, ¶¶ 16–32, 151 P.3d at 1141–46 (finding the district court had the discretion to reject a plea agreement for a deferred sentence after considering a wide variety of factors about the defendant and his crimes); Rawson, 900 P.2d at 1139–40 (holding a district court has full discretion to decide whether to grant a deferred sentence under Wyoming Statute § 7-13-301 even though the defendant and State consent to its application).

2019Stat. Ann. § 14-6-237 (b) (LexisNexis 2017)). [¶13] “We have repeatedly stated that ‘[a] court is given broad discretion in sentencing and may consider a wide variety of factors about the defendant and his crimes.’” Sen III, ¶ 29, 390 P.3d at 777 (quoting Frederick v. State, 2007 WY 27, ¶ 26 , 151 P.3d 1136, 1144 (Wyo. 2007)).

2019Davis, ¶ 63, 415 P.3d at 686 (quoting Schaeffer v. State, 2012 WY 9, ¶ 51 , 268 P.3d 1045, 1061 (Wyo. 2012)) (“‘[w]hen imposing sentence, the trial court is given broad discretion to consider a wide variety of factors about the defendant and his crimes,’ and we ‘will not disturb a sentencing decision absent a clear abuse of discretion’”).

2019Davis, ¶ 63, 415 P.3d at 686 (quoting Schaeffer v. State, 2012 WY 9, ¶ 51 , 268 P.3d 1045, 1061 (Wyo. 2012)) (“‘[w]hen imposing sentence, the trial court is given broad discretion to consider a wide variety of factors about the defendant and his crimes,’ and we ‘will not disturb a sentencing decision absent a clear abuse of discretion’”).

2018See Schaeffer v. State , 2012 WY 9 , ¶ 51, 268 P.3d 1045 , 1061 (Wyo. 2012) ("[w]hen imposing sentence, the trial court is given broad discretion to consider a wide variety of factors about the defendant and his crimes," and we "will not disturb a sentencing decision absent a clear abuse of discretion"); Gorseth v. State , 2006 WY 109 , ¶ 15, 141 P.3d 698 , 703 (Wyo. 2006) (same). [¶64] The State cites State v. Ramos , 187 Wash.2d 420 , 387 P.3d 650 , 667 (2017), in support of its contention that our review should be for an abuse of discretion.

2018See Schaeffer v. State , 2012 WY 9 , ¶ 51, 268 P.3d 1045 , 1061 (Wyo. 2012) ("[w]hen imposing sentence, the trial court is given broad discretion to consider a wide variety of factors about the defendant and his crimes," and we "will not disturb a sentencing decision absent a clear abuse of discretion"); Gorseth v. State , 2006 WY 109 , ¶ 15, 141 P.3d 698 , 703 (Wyo. 2006) (same). [¶64] The State cites State v. Ramos , 187 Wash.2d 420 , 387 P.3d 650 , 667 (2017), in support of its contention that our review should be for an abuse of discretion.

2023See also, Kelley v. State, 2009 WY 3, ¶ 7 , 199 P.3d 521, 523 (Wyo. 2009) (“Sentencing decisions generally are subject to review for an abuse of discretion.” (citing Smith v. State, 941 P.2d 749, 750 (Wyo. 1997))). [¶31] “When imposing sentence, the trial court is given broad discretion to consider a wide variety of factors about the defendant and his crimes.” Manes v. State, 2004 WY 70, ¶ 9 , 92 P.3d 289, 292 (Wyo. 2004) (citing Mehring v. State, 860 P.2d 1101, 1115 (Wyo. 1993), and Griebel v. State, 763 P.2d 475, 477 (Wyo. 1988)).

2023See also, Kelley v. State, 2009 WY 3, ¶ 7 , 199 P.3d 521, 523 (Wyo. 2009) (“Sentencing decisions generally are subject to review for an abuse of discretion.” (citing Smith v. State, 941 P.2d 749, 750 (Wyo. 1997))). [¶31] “When imposing sentence, the trial court is given broad discretion to consider a wide variety of factors about the defendant and his crimes.” Manes v. State, 2004 WY 70, ¶ 9 , 92 P.3d 289, 292 (Wyo. 2004) (citing Mehring v. State, 860 P.2d 1101, 1115 (Wyo. 1993), and Griebel v. State, 763 P.2d 475, 477 (Wyo. 1988)).

2023See also, Kelley v. State, 2009 WY 3, ¶ 7 , 199 P.3d 521, 523 (Wyo. 2009) (“Sentencing decisions generally are subject to review for an abuse of discretion.” (citing Smith v. State, 941 P.2d 749, 750 (Wyo. 1997))). [¶31] “When imposing sentence, the trial court is given broad discretion to consider a wide variety of factors about the defendant and his crimes.” Manes v. State, 2004 WY 70, ¶ 9 , 92 P.3d 289, 292 (Wyo. 2004) (citing Mehring v. State, 860 P.2d 1101, 1115 (Wyo. 1993), and Griebel v. State, 763 P.2d 475, 477 (Wyo. 1988)).

2019“An abuse of discretion will not be found unless the court acts in a manner that exceeds the bounds of reason.” Sparks v. State, 2019 WY 50 , ¶ 12, 440 P.3d 1095, 1101 (Wyo. 2019).

2017In Noel v. State, 2014 WY 30, ¶ 42 , 319 P.3d 134, 148 (Wyo. 2014), we noted that “a sentencing court may consider evidence that supports a charge greater than the conviction for which the defendant is being sentenced as well as evidence of other crimes committed by the defendant.” Further, in Frederick, ¶ 26, 151 P.3d at 1145 , we stated that “Victim impact information about other crimes or convictions unrelated to the particular crime for which sentence is about to be imposed is permissible.” Accordingly, the district court could properly consider Sen’s conduct before and after the aggravate

2017In Noel v. State, 2014 WY 30, ¶ 42 , 319 P.3d 134, 148 (Wyo. 2014), we noted that “a sentencing court may consider evidence that supports a charge greater than the conviction for which the defendant is being sentenced as well as evidence of other crimes committed by the defendant.” Further, in Frederick, ¶ 26, 151 P.3d at 1145 , we stated that “Victim impact information about other crimes or convictions unrelated to the particular crime for which sentence is about to be imposed is permissible.” Accordingly, the district court could properly consider Sen’s conduct before and after the aggravate

2015Croy v. State, 2014 WY 111, ¶7 , 384 P.3d 564 , 567 (Wyo.2014). 'These include "victim impact statements, PSIs, and other factors relating to the defendant and his crimes[.]" Deeds v. State, 2014 WY 124, ¶ 22 , 335 P.3d 473, 479 (Wyo.2014) (quoting Noller v. State, 2010 WY 30, ¶ 13 , 226 P.3d 867, 871 (Wyo.2010)), . [113] The district court's oral sentencing decision consists of two paragraphs: As [defense counsel] has probably told you, as most people here know, I've done this now for a very long time.

2015Croy v. State, 2014 WY 111, ¶7 , 384 P.3d 564 , 567 (Wyo.2014). 'These include "victim impact statements, PSIs, and other factors relating to the defendant and his crimes[.]" Deeds v. State, 2014 WY 124, ¶ 22 , 335 P.3d 473, 479 (Wyo.2014) (quoting Noller v. State, 2010 WY 30, ¶ 13 , 226 P.3d 867, 871 (Wyo.2010)), . [113] The district court's oral sentencing decision consists of two paragraphs: As [defense counsel] has probably told you, as most people here know, I've done this now for a very long time.

2015Did the district court abuse its discretion when it denied Mr. Butler probation and sentenced him to serve time in prison? [112] "[When the district court's imposition of a criminal sentence is within the limits set by the legislature, the sentence will not be overturned, absent a clear abuse of discretion. 2 Hubbard v. State, 2008 WY 12, ¶ 27 , 175 P.3d 625, 680 (Wyo.2008). "[It is a very difficult bar for an appellant to leap seeking to overturn a sentencing decision on an abuse of discretion argument[,]" due in large part to the wide variety of factors a district court can consider in its s

2015Did the district court abuse its discretion when it denied Mr. Butler probation and sentenced him to serve time in prison? [112] "[When the district court's imposition of a criminal sentence is within the limits set by the legislature, the sentence will not be overturned, absent a clear abuse of discretion. 2 Hubbard v. State, 2008 WY 12, ¶ 27 , 175 P.3d 625, 680 (Wyo.2008). "[It is a very difficult bar for an appellant to leap seeking to overturn a sentencing decision on an abuse of discretion argument[,]" due in large part to the wide variety of factors a district court can consider in its s

2015Croy v. State, 2014 WY 111, ¶7 , 384 P.3d 564 , 567 (Wyo.2014). 'These include "victim impact statements, PSIs, and other factors relating to the defendant and his crimes[.]" Deeds v. State, 2014 WY 124, ¶ 22 , 335 P.3d 473, 479 (Wyo.2014) (quoting Noller v. State, 2010 WY 30, ¶ 13 , 226 P.3d 867, 871 (Wyo.2010)), . [113] The district court's oral sentencing decision consists of two paragraphs: As [defense counsel] has probably told you, as most people here know, I've done this now for a very long time.

2015Croy v. State, 2014 WY 111, ¶7 , 384 P.3d 564 , 567 (Wyo.2014). 'These include "victim impact statements, PSIs, and other factors relating to the defendant and his crimes[.]" Deeds v. State, 2014 WY 124, ¶ 22 , 335 P.3d 473, 479 (Wyo.2014) (quoting Noller v. State, 2010 WY 30, ¶ 13 , 226 P.3d 867, 871 (Wyo.2010)), . [113] The district court's oral sentencing decision consists of two paragraphs: As [defense counsel] has probably told you, as most people here know, I've done this now for a very long time.

2009Gorseth v. State, 2006 WY 109, ¶ 15 , 141 P.3d 698, 703 (Wyo. 2006); Cohee v. State, 2005 WY 50, ¶ 4 , 110 P.3d 267, 269 (Wyo. 2005).

2009Gorseth v. State, 2006 WY 109, ¶ 15 , 141 P.3d 698, 703 (Wyo. 2006); Cohee v. State, 2005 WY 50, ¶ 4 , 110 P.3d 267, 269 (Wyo. 2005).

1999Swingholm v. State, 910 P.2d 1334, 1339 (Wyo.1996) (quoting Mehring v. State, 860 P.2d 1101, 1115 (Wyo.1993)).