GOSHEN COUNTY – The Honorable Judge Nathaniel Hibben called the District Court of Goshen County to order a few moments after 2 p.m. on Wednesday, January 29 in the matter of State of Wyoming …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
To continue reading, you will need to either log in to your subscriber account, below, or purchase a new subscription.
Please log in to continue |
GOSHEN COUNTY – The Honorable Judge Nathaniel Hibben called the District Court of Goshen County to order a few moments after 2 p.m. on Wednesday, January 29 in the matter of State of Wyoming vs. Andrew Atkinson. Atkinson, 27, has been charged with a handful of offenses resulting from an alleged domestic violence attack involving his child’s mother, Natalie Blaise, in early August 2024. Atkinson, who has been in custody since turning himself into authorities after a second warrant was issued in late August 2024, also faces charges for a 2016 incident where he applied pressure to the neck and/or throat of a household member.
“As we begin today, Mr. Atkinson, are you under the influence of any medicine, alcohol, or drugs or is there any other condition in which the court needs to be aware that would make it difficult for you to understand, participate, or otherwise communicate with the court?” Hibben asked Atkinson.
Atkinson responded with a simple, “No, Your Honor.”
Hibben then spoke to Goshen County and Prosecuting Attorney Eric Boyer, who represented the State of Wyoming in the above matter, to clarify the motion for the Wednesday hearing. Hibben noted, and it was affirmed by both Boyer and Atkinson’s counsel, Jose Bustos, that the purpose of the hearing was to enter a change of plea for district court dockets 2024-24, 2024-25, 2024-26, and 2024-34.
“We have these four docket numbers, I have a joint cumulative plea agreement,” Boyer explained. “For it and return to guilty placing sufficient factual basis for three felonies, which I’ll get into that the state within agreed to dismiss the remainder. The defendant nonetheless agreeing to pay reasonable restitution as the court orders and sentencing on all of the cases including the dismissed cases. The state agrees to stand in silence at the sentencing.”
Boyer also noted two of the three victims in the charges would “likely want to speak and provide their impact statement” at sentencing. Boyer cited Wyoming Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(e)(1)(B).
“I suggest that specifically that the agreement calls for in CR 2024-25 for the defendant to plead guilty and provide a sufficient factual basis for the one crime alleged there in count one, strangulation of Kelsey Ewing,” Boyer said. “For docket CR 2024-26, the plea here would call for the defendant to plead guilty to count one being aggravated battery of Natalie Blaise and provide sufficient factual basis for that and plead guilty also provide sufficient factual basis for count four being felony child abuse of Natalie Blaise’s child. The state then agreeing to dismiss counts two and three on that information,” Boyer explained. “This concerns docket 2024-24. That’s a one-count information alleging a burglary that occurred in 2016 that he kind of disagreed to pay restitution in that matter. I kind of just chatted with Mr. Bustos about that.”
Boyer noted the state also would dismiss the property destruction charge, Atkinson’s most current charge, however, restitution would be ordered. Bustos noted the agreement was as Boyer presented it to the judge.
“So, the restitution applies to 2024-24, 2024-34 and then as far as, what I guess would call, not property crimes but the personal crimes, is there restitution? I just want to be clear for the record. As far as medical bills and things like that. Mr. Boyer, is restitution in pay on all dockets?” Hibben asked.
“Correct, Your Honor,” Boyer responded.
“So, the parties would anticipate having one restitution hearing covering all of these dockets and you would agree on, if you could, on a particular restitution in that particular docket. Or if you could not, you would have a hearing at the same time, with regard to those other dockets, to have the court determine the appropriate amount for restitution.”
“That’s a possibility,” Bustos said.
“That would be my preference too, Your Honor,” Boyer said.
After taking a moment to review the files before him, Hibben spoke to the defendant.
“Mr. Atkinson, I’m going to, today, before we kind of get into the change of plea part of the hearing, I am going to go over your Constitutional Rights again and also tell you which of those constitutional rights you will be waving by choosing to change your plea today. I will also be advising you of certain financial and civil rights ramifications to a felony conviction,” Hibben explained. “After I get done with that, I will ask you if you have any questions and I’d be happy to try to answer those or you could ask Mr. Bustos to try to address those.”
Hibben noted the cases had been or would be being set for trial 180 days from the defendant’s arraignment, where Atkinson originally pleaded “not guilty” on all counts. Atkinson stated he had access to his legal counsel and he was overall satisfied with his representation. Hibben expressed if the cases should go to trial, the burden of proof would be on the State of Wyoming to prove Atkinson’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury. Hibben also explained the rights Atkinson had, if the cases were to go to trial, noting Atkinson could call witnesses and cross-examine the state’s witnesses. Hibben advised the defendant, should he continue to plead “not guilty,” he would also have the opportunity to testify should he choose to do so.
“Now, I told you I would tell you a little bit about how a change of plea does and how it affects your rights. You need to understand that if I accept ‘guilty’ pleas in these particular dockets there would be no trial of any kind, okay? By pleading ‘guilty’ you waive your right to a speedy trial,” Hibben explained. “Also, as I told you a moment ago, you have the right to remain silent, but if you choose to plea ‘guilty,’ change of plea, you waive your right to remain silent as to that particular docket. In that, I would place you under oath and I would ask you questions or I may have Mr. Bustos ask you questions on the record to determine whether or not there is a factual basis for a guilty plea. In other words, if you plead ‘guilty,’ I am going to hear sworn facts from you that satisfy the court that there is an underlying supporting basis for your guilty pleas,” Hibben continued.
If Atkinson were to lie under oath, he would be charged with making false statements, Hibben further explained. Hibben then spoke to the civil and financial consequences Atkinson would face change of plea to ‘guilty,’ which included the possibility of paying restitution. Atkinson would also be prohibited from owning or possessing firearms under Wyoming State Law and the US Constitution. Hibben advised Atkinson he would be required to submit a DNA sample to the national database. Hibben then recited the terms of the plea agreement once more, asking both Boyer and Busto to clarify if any corrections were needed.
“With regard to 2024-24, that’s a single count of burglary. That count will be dismissed but the defendant will pay restitution. There is no specific amount of restitution agreed on but rather the parties will argue restitution in front of the court in a restitution hearing,” Hibben explained. “With regards to 2024-25, that’s a single count of strangulation of a household member. The defendant will be pleading guilty and would have to pay restitution. But again, it’s my understanding that restitution is not agreed upon. That will be argued to the court in a separate hearing for the court’s determination. With regard to 2024-26, that is a four-count information,” Hibben continued. “The plea agreement calls for him to plea ‘guilty’ to count one which is aggravated assault and battery. Count four, which would be felony child abuse. The state would dismiss count two which is another count of aggravated assault and battery and count three which is strangulation of a household member. Again, restitution will be paid in that case. But there’s no agreement as to what that restitution amount is and that would be argued in front of the court at a separate restitution hearing. 2024-34 is a single-count property destruction. That count will be dismissed but again restitution is in play. Again, no agreement as to restitution but rather the parties will argue restitution at a separate restitution hearing for the court’s determination.”
“As part of sentencing, the state agrees to stand silent. The defendant may argue for whatever sentence he wishes. This plea agreement, Mr. Atkinson, is one of those that come under the Wyoming Rules of Criminal Procedure 11(e)(1)(B). Which means it’s not an agreement for any specific sentence, rather the parties are going to argue sentencing. Because it comes under 11(e)(1)(B) it’s a plea agreement to do certain things but it’s not a plea agreement for a specific sentence,” Hibben said. “So, if you receive a sentence that you are not happy with, then nevertheless, you would have no right to withdraw your guilty plea.”
Hibben asked Atkinson if he understood to which Atkinson responded with a simple, “Yes, Your Honor.”
“As part of the process, Mr. Atkinson, at the end of today’s hearing, I will order what’s called a ‘presentencing investigation report’. That’s a very thorough summary of your life,” Hibben explained noting the court would review the document before sentencing.
Next, Hibben moved on to accept the “guilty” plea of the four dockets and a presentencing investigation will be conducted. Atkinson will be sentenced at a later date.