Martinson v. State

1

2023 WY 88

TYLER BRYAN MARTINSON, Appellant (Defendant), v. THE STATE OF WYOMING, Appellee (Plaintiff).

Nos. S-22-0241, S-23-0027

Supreme Court of Wyoming

August 30, 2023

Appeal from the District Court of Campbell County The Honorable Stuart S. Healy, III, Judge

Representing Appellant: Casandra Ann Craven, Longhorn Law Limited Liability Company, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

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

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

FOX CHIEF JUSTICE

[¶1] A jury convicted Tyler Bryan Martinson of six counts of aggravated child abuse, and the district court sentenced him to concurrent prison terms of four to eight years on each count. Mr. Martinson appeals his sentence and the court's subsequent denial of his motion for sentence reduction and correction. He claims the court failed to adequately consider probation and his sentence was thus illegal. He further argues his sentence was illegal because: the presentence investigation (PSI) report contained no sentencing recommendation; the child abuse statute under which he was convicted fails to distinguish between intentional and reckless acts for purposes of sentencing; and the sentence was cruel and unusual. Mr. Martinson also claims the court abused its discretion in denying his motion to reduce his sentence. We affirm.

ISSUES

[¶2] We rephrase the issues as follows:

1. Did the district court consider probation in sentencing Mr. Martinson?

2. Did the lack of a sentencing recommendation in the PSI report violate Mr. Martinson's due process and equal protection rights?

3. Does the child abuse statute, under which Mr. Martinson was convicted, violate the Wyoming Constitution because it fails to distinguish between intentional and reckless acts for purposes of sentencing?

4. Was Mr. Martinson's sentence cruel and unusual?

5. Did the district court abuse its discretion in denying Mr Martinson's motion for a sentence reduction?

FACTS

[¶3] On January 2, 2021, Mr. Martinson took his three-month-old son, RM, to the Campbell County Memorial Hospital emergency room in Gillette, Wyoming. He and the child's mother told the intake nurse that RM "was having some popping while he was breathing" and was not moving his right leg. When Mr. Martinson removed him from his car seat, he screamed and cried, and the intake nurse believed him to be in the most pain she had seen in a three-month-old child.

[¶4] RM had bruises on his upper abdomen, and x-rays showed four recent rib fractures, five recent leg fractures, and twenty-two older fractures in various stages of healing, for a total of thirty-one fractures. Mr. Martinson and RM's mother told the intake nurse that Mr. Martinson had been moving RM's legs to help relieve the child's gas, and "they mentioned that he may have been a little rough with him." Mr. Martinson told one investigator that RM's injuries were his fault, that he got angry, and "just lost it, I guess." In another interview, Mr Martinson acknowledged RM's fractures could have come from him not being as gentle as he should have been with RM and that he went too far. He further admitted he became frustrated and irritated with RM and squeezed him to the point he could tell it hurt him. He also told of an occasion when RM choked on something and he held RM upside down by his legs and hit him on the back.

[¶5] The State charged Mr. Martinson with thirty-one counts of aggravated child abuse but dismissed twenty-one of the charges before trial. The dismissed charges were for older rib fractures. The amended information alleged acts occurring between December 20, 2020, and January 2, 2021. Counts I through V alleged child abuse resulting in rib fractures, and Counts VI through X alleged child abuse resulting in leg fractures.

[¶6] A jury found Mr. Martinson guilty of Counts I through V child abuse resulting in rib fractures, and Count VI, child abuse resulting in a diaphyseal fracture of RM's right femur. It found him not guilty of the remaining counts. For each guilty verdict, the jury was required to find whether Mr. Martinson acted intentionally or recklessly in causing RM's injuries, and for each, it found he acted recklessly.

[¶7] Mr. Martinson's defense theory was that RM suffered from a disorder called Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, a condition "associated with easy bruisability, muscle hypersensitivity, gastroparesis, and skeletal fractures," and his expert testified he had diagnosed the condition in RM. However, his expert agreed on cross-examination that there is "no medical consensus" the disorder can be diagnosed in children.

[¶8] One of RM's treating physicians from Colorado testified that the team of physicians treating RM, which included genetic specialists, "agreed that the nature and constellation of [RM's] fractures didn't suggest any metabolic or bone disease." Concerning the injuries for which Mr. Martinson was found guilty of child abuse, she testified:

Q. Now, with the several rib fractures we've previously discussed, mechanistically, what causes those types of injuries?

A. In a child like this - so first of all, an infant's ribs are very cartilaginous, they're not hard. So even things like CPR would rarely cause a rib fracture in a child because they're much more flexible. But when we see these kinds of fractures, it's really from grabbing, squeezing, bending of the ribs.

Q. . . . With respect to the diaphyseal femur fracture, mechanistically what causes a fracture such as that?

A. So that fracture is what we would call a spiral fracture. That means it spirals down the bone, and that would require some level of torsion or twisting.

Q. Given all of the efforts you extended in this regard, were you ultimately able to come up with a medical diagnosis?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. And what was your medical diagnosis?

A. Child physical abuse.

. . .

Q. And then would medical child physical abuse, would that be a form of nonaccidental trauma?

A. Yes.

Q. Was this a medical diagnosis that the team collectively made, or is this something that you, alone, made?

A. No, the team had consensus on this.

[¶9] Following the jury's verdict, the district court ordered a presentence investigation. The Wyoming Department of Corrections performed the investigation and prepared a PSI report that did not include a sentencing recommendation. The agent who prepared the report wrote:

This writer has considered all of the sentencing options for the Defendant to include a term of incarceration, community supervision, and placement in an adult community corrections facility. Mr. Martinson presents as low risk for recidivism, has remained employed and although does not take full accountability for the nature of the injuries, shows remorse and has sought out counseling and medication to assist him. On the other hand, the amount of injuries inflicted on this young child is impossible to comprehend and it is difficult to say whether or not he is suitable for supervision or poses a risk to the community. If given a prison sentence, he would be able to attend treatment while incarcerated and would not be an immediate threat. Mr. Martinson is a low risk; therefore, he does not qualify for the Adult Community Corrections Program or the ISP program. Should this Court determine community supervision is appropriate, this Agent would request DFS, or another third party, and the Probation Office work together with his counselors to determine the appropriate time to reunite.

[¶10] At sentencing, the district court noted the lack of a sentencing recommendation in the PSI report, which it observed was unusual and likely reflected the difficulty the sentencing presented. Defense counsel made similar comments but did not object to the lack of a sentencing recommendation or any other aspect of the report. The court considered statements from Mr. Martinson's supporters and then heard argument from the State and Mr. Martinson. The State argued for a prison term of eighteen to twenty-five years on Counts I through V, to run concurrently, and a consecutive term of eighteen to twenty-five years on Count VI, for a total term of thirty-six to fifty years. Mr. Martinson requested a sentence of probation.

[¶11] After hearing from both sides, the district court noted the difficulty its sentencing decision presented because Mr. Martinson acted recklessly, not intentionally. The court then weighed the need for punishment, rehabilitation, general and specific deterrence, and community protection; the nature and circumstances of the crime; and mitigating factors such as Mr. Martinson's acceptance of responsibility, youth, employability, and efforts at rehabilitation. After considering these factors, the court sentenced Mr. Martinson to prison terms of four to eight years on each count, to be served concurrently.

[¶12] Mr. Martinson filed a notice of appeal but subsequently moved this Court for leave to file a motion in district court for reconsideration or correction of an illegal sentence and asked that we stay briefing pending the district court's ruling on the motion. We ruled that such leave was not required but granted it to avoid any jurisdictional questions or concerns, and we stayed briefing.

[¶13] Mr. Martinson then filed a motion to correct his sentence which he claimed was illegal for the reasons now asserted on appeal. Alternatively, he requested that the district court exercise its discretion to reduce his sentence to probation. He pointed to the Department of Corrections' placement of him at the Wyoming Honor Farm, a minimum-security facility, as evidence he was a proper...