Lynch v. State

552 P.3d 392

2024 WY 79

Jennifer Elizabeth LYNCH a/k/a Jennifer Elizabeth Stracener, Appellant (Defendant),

v.The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff).

S-23-0271

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

July 24, 2024

Appeal from the District Court of Carbon County, The Honorable Dawnessa A. Snyder, Judge

Representing Appellant: Office of the State Public Defender: Diane Lozano, State Public Defender; Kirk A. Morgan, Chief Appellate Counsel; Robin S. Cooper, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel. Argument by Ms. Cooper.

Representing Appellee: Bridget Hill, Attorney General; Jenny L. Craig, Deputy Attorney General; Kristen R. Jones, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Kristine D. Rude, Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Ms. Rude.

Before FOX, C.J., and BOOMGAARDEN, GRAY, FENN, and JAROSH, JJ.

FENN, Justice.

[¶1] Jennifer Lynch pled guilty to one count of misdemeanor endangering children and one count of felony child abuse. Ms. Lynch appeals only her child abuse conviction, claiming there was no factual basis to support that charge, and the district court abused its discretion when it denied her postsentence motion to withdraw her guilty plea. We reverse and remand.

ISSUES

[¶2] Ms. Lynch raises two issues, which we rephrase as follows:

I. Did the district court err when it accepted Ms. Lynch’s guilty plea to felony child abuse without obtaining a sufficient factual basis?

II. Did the district court err when it denied Ms. Lynch’s post-sentence motion to withdraw her guilty plea?

Because we find the first issue requires reversal, we will not address her second issue.

FACTS

[¶3] On the evening of December 6, 2022, Ms. Lynch and her wife, Tabitha, brought their five children to the emergency room at Memorial Hospital of Carbon County to be treated for respiratory infections. Although the family was initially placed in one room, Tabitha asked to be separated from Ms. Lynch because she wanted to end their relationship. Tabitha and her three sons, MT, NL, and SL, were placed in one room, while Ms. Lynch and her two daughters,¹ JB and SB, were placed in another room. Once separated, Tabitha informed the medical staff that Ms. Lynch had been putting Seroquel in MT’s bottle to help him sleep. Ms. Lynch confirmed she had been giving Seroquel to some of the children. After receiving this information,’ medical staff contacted the Rawlins Police Department and the Department of Family Services.

[¶4] Ms. Lynch spoke with law enforcement and admitted to giving her prescription Seroquel to MT and JB. Ms. Lynch said JB had trouble sleeping, and the Melatonin recommended by her pediatrician proved to be ineffective. Ms. Lynch explained JB had oth- er health issues, including obesity and sleep apnea, and JB cannot lay flat when she sleeps. Due to these sleeping issues, Ms. Lynch and her mother, Jo Peden, would crush up the Seroquel tablets, place some of the powder into a bottle of milk, and give it to JB to drink, Ms. Lynch also stated MT has ADHD, and Tabitha asked her to give him some of the Seroquel to calm him because she did not like getting up with him. Ms. Lynch and Ms. Peden used the same process to administer the Seroquel to MT.

[¶5] Officers searched Ms. Lynch’s home, which she shared with Tabitha and the children, Ms. Peden, Ms. Lynch’s adult daughter, Jessica Buell, and a family friend, Billy Aden. Ms. Peden showed the officers Ms. Lynch’s Seroquel prescription, which was kept in a safe in Ms, Peden’s room, and the pill crusher they used to crush the tablets. Officers also discovered Ms. Buell and Mr. Aden had been using methamphetamine in the basement of the residence.

[¶6] Ms. Lynch, Ms. Peden, Ms. Buell, and Mr. Aden were all arrested and charged in a joint information with a total of fourteen counts. Ms. Lynch was charged with one felony count of aggravated assault and battery, and four misdemeanor counts of endangering children. She pled not guilty to these charges. Ms. Lynch later filed a notice of intent to change her plea pursuant to a plea agreement. In exchange for pleading guilty to one amended count of felony child abuse and one misdemeanor count of endangering children, the State agreed to dismiss the remaining counts and recommend a sentence of five to eight years in prison, suspended in favor of three years of probation on the child abuse count, and ninety days in jail on the endangering children count with credit for time served. The State filed an amended information in accordance with the terms of this plea agreement. Rather than filing a new affidavit of probable cause to support the child abuse charge, the State relied on the original affidavit filed in December of 2022.

[1, 2] [¶7] The district court held a change of plea hearing in May 2023. After reciting the terms of the plea agreement, the district court engaged in a colloquy with Ms. Lynch to ensure she was intelligently, freely, and voluntarily changing her plea. The district court advised Ms. Lynch of the rights she would be waiving if she changed her plea. The district court also advised Ms. Lynch that it was not bound by the plea agreement, and if the court rejected the agreement, she could receive the maximum sentence. The district court never went over the elements of the child abuse count with Ms. Lynch prior to asking her for her plea to the amended charge of child abuse.² After Ms. Lynch entered her guilty pleas to both the child abuse and endangering children charges, the district court asked her to explain "what occurred that [made her] guilty of these charges." The following exchange occurred:

THE DEFENDANT: I supplied the drug Seroquel to my mother, and my mother was able to give the drug out to the kids.

THE COURT: And did you know in supplying that Seroquel to your mother that the intent was to give it to the children?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: And whose medication was it?

THE DEFENDANT: It’s mine.

THE COURT: And did that cause some type of injury to the children?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, ma’am.

THE COURT: Can you describe the injury[?]

THE DEFENDANT: I know that [MT] is delayed in some ways. I know that [JB] is -- she wasn’t getting the healthcare that she needed.

THE COURT: And were you responsible for her care?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, ma’am.

THE COURT: And you were responsible to make sure that she wasn’t given Seroquel and to give the appropriate healthcare? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, ma’am.

[¶8] The district court asked the State if it believed that was a sufficient factual basis to support Ms. Lynch’s plea. The State supplemented the factual basis as follows:

[THE PROSECUTOR:] Your Honor, the State would supplement during the interview with law enforcement, Ms. Lynch, admitted that she had provided the Seroquel knowing her mother had put it into the bottle, given it to Ms. Lynch, who then provided it to the children. I do believe that’s an important distinction than just making a prescription available to a person to give.

Further, Your Honor, the State’s evidence would be that [JB] suffers from some severe medical conditions, including sleeping problems, breathing problems. By providing the Seroquel, it was an additional suppressant to her ability to breathe, which was essentially forcing her to go to sleep, despite those medical conditions. The State would supplement that that was the physical injury in this case.

Thank you.

THE COURT: Ms. Lynch, did you provide the children with bottles knowing they had Seroquel in them, that your mother had put Seroquel in them?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, ma’am.

THE COURT: So you knowingly gave these children Seroquel?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, ma’am.

THE COURT: And then would you agree with the State’s recitation of the injuries to [JB]?

THE DEFENDANT: To [JB], yes, ma’am.

The district court found there was a sufficient factual basis and accepted Ms. Lynch’s pleas.

[¶9] At the sentencing hearing, the district court found the plea agreement was inappropriate, and Ms. Lynch was not a good candidate for probation. For the child abuse count, the district court sentenced Ms. Lynch to nine-to-ten years in prison. For the endangering children charge, the district court sentenced Ms. Lynch to 25 days in jail with credit for the 25 days she had already served. Ms. Lynch timely appealed the judgment and sentence.

[¶10] Approximately one week after Ms. Lynch filed her notice of appeal, she filed a pro se pleading which the district court interpreted as a combined post-sentence motion to withdraw her guilty plea and a motion for a sentence reduction. This pleading made vague allegations against Ms. Lynch’s trial counsel, asserted Tabitha should also have been charged, claimed she only took the plea in order to get the case over with, declared she now wanted to assert her right to a trial, and complained about the length of her sentence. Ms. Lynch asked to be placed on probation. The district court denied both of Ms. Lynch’s motions.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[3, 4] [¶11] Ms. Lynch argues there was an insufficient factual basis for the district court to accept her guilty plea. When a defendant lodges an objection to the factual basis before the trial court, we apply the harmless error standard, but when no objection is made, we apply the plain error standard. See Nguyen v. State, 2013 WY 50, ¶ 8, 299 P.3d 683, 686 (Wyo. 2013) (citing United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 73-74, 122 S. Ct. 1043, 1054, 152 L. Ed. 2d 90 (2002)). Ms. Lynch moved to withdraw her guilty plea. However, she did so for reasons other than a lack of a sufficient factual basis. Because Ms. Lynch did not object to the factual basis before the trial court, we apply a plain error standard of review. Williams v State, 2015 WY 100, ¶ 11, 354 P.3d 954, 959 (Wyo. 2015) (citing Duke v. State, 2009 WY 74, ¶ 22, 209 P.3d 563, 571 (Wyo. 2009)).

[5–7] [¶12] "Plain error occurs when the alleged error: ‘(1) clearly appears in the record; (2) clearly and obviously violates a clear and unequivocal rule of law; and (3) affects a defendant’s substantial right to [her] material prejudice. ...