GOSHEN COUNTY – “We will come to order in criminal docket number 2024-28 State of Wyoming vs. David Archuleta,” Eighth Judicial District Court Judge Edward Buchanan said when he called the change of plea hearing to order on Monday, March 10 at 1 p.m. “Mr. Archuleta, good Afternoon. Mr. Archuleta is appearing with counsel, Mr. Eric Palen and Mr. Eric Boyer (Goshen County Prosecuting Attorney) on behalf of the State of Wyoming.”

Buchanan then spoke to Palen and Boyer, confirmed Monday’s hearing was a change of plea hearing for Archuleta. 

“That’s my understanding also, Your Honor,” Boyer said. 

“Yes, I think that’s what’s going to happen, judge. I am not 100% sure but, yes,” Palen said. 

Archuleta was charged with one count of taking a controlled substance into a penal institution for an incident which occurred on or about October 5, 2023.

In the probable cause affidavit filed with the court in April 2024, Torrington Police Department responded to the Wyoming Medium Correctional Institute regarding the intake of an inmate, “David Archuleta.” 

“…on October 5, 2023, while searching David [Archuleta], Sergeant George Ross had found what appeared to be a Suboxone sublingual strip in David’s medicine bag,” the affidavit of probable cause explained. 

After noting Archuleta had no active prescription for Suboxone, the strip was collected as evidence and sent for further testing. Further testing results reported on February 19, 2024, indicated the sublingual strip tested positive for Buprenorphine, the active opioid ingredient in Suboxone. Buprenorphine is a schedule III narcotic. 

The case was bound over to district court in October 2024. Archuleta was arraigned before the courts after waving his preliminary hearing, on October 30, 2024, where he entered a plea of “not guilty.” A court date was set of March 5, 2025, however Archuleta, through his counsel, entered a motion to change his plea in February. 

During the Monday hearing, Buchanan asked Archuleta if he was under the influence of any medication or drugs or alcohol or if he had any conditions which would make it difficult for Archuleta to understand the court proceedings to which Archuleta denied. 

“I’m going to go over your rights in this matter again. We had our arraignment on October 30, 2025, so I know it’s been a little while,” Buchanan said. “It looks like the information in this case is a single count information alleging that on or about October 5, 2023, that you had taken a controlled substance into a penal institution, specifically that you had taken Buprenorphine, which is a controlled substance into Wyoming Medium Correctional Institute located here in Goshen County.”

Buchanan explained, if the allegations against Archuleta were true, the conviction would be felonious with a maximum penalty of three years in prison, a $3,000 fine or both. Buchanan also explained Archuleta could enter a plea of “guilty,” “not guilty” or “not guilty by reason of mental illness.” Buchanan informed Archuleta, he could plead “no contest,” under certain circumstance and with permission of the court. Buchanan explained Archuleta had the right to a speedy and public jury trial. 

“You also have the right to be presented by an attorney at the jury trial and all stages of these criminal proceedings that’s why Mr. Palen has been appointed to represent you,” Buchanan said. “Since the case has been going on for quite a while now, Mr. Archuleta, have you had a chance to speak with Mr. Palen about the case and discuss it?”

“Not really, Your Honor. That’s something I wanted to speak with you about today, Your Honor,” Archuleta said. “I feel like I have been miss-represented and because of that, I’m asking the courts today to grant me new representation on the simple fact that I’ve only talked to Palen maybe six times during the six months I’ve been here. The first time we came to court, I asked to plea ‘no contest.’ He (Palen) on his own accord, he plead ‘not guilty’ for me.”

Archuleta continued by stating he had communicated with Palen and told him he did not commit the crime and Archuleta further stated Palen had told him to lie. 

“He asked me to come into court to lie to you and tell you that I put it (sublingual strip which tested positive for Buprenorphine) in that medicine bag,” Archuleta said before being stopped by Buchanan. “I did not want to change my plea. I wanted to go to trial. He’s been changing my plea on his own accord. I’ve been totally miss-represented, Your Honor.” 

“I would say this after hearing you, when you have court appointed counsel, they have a number of assigned cases. They have a lot of cases. So, if you say he’s been in contact with you at least on a monthly basis, in the courts view, that’s pretty good, that’s number one,” Buchanan said. “Number two, when you first come to court, maybe you want to enter a certain plea but 99% of the time, because the attorney doesn’t know much about the case at that point in time, they try to be careful in representing your best interest by pleading ‘not guilty’ so that they can investigate the case, get all the reports and those types of things. Because otherwise they wouldn’t feel comfortable having you plead even ‘no contest’ if they don’t have all of the information.” 

Buchanan explained the plea of “no contest” was similar to a “guilty” plea however by pleading “no contest” Archuleta would not have to give a factual basis and tell the court he had committed the crime. Buchanan noted “no contest” might not be the best for Archuleta. 

“Lastly, when you have a court appointed attorney, from what I’ve heard so far, if you want to go out and hire your own attorney or act as your own attorney, you’re welcomed to do that,” Buchanan said. “But we don’t just switch public defenders because their appointed counsel. We just don’t have enough to say, ‘Well, I will get you a different one.’”

Archuleta expressed he was going to take the “no contest” plea because Palen had told him it was the way to go. 

“Then he came in here and told you he was pleading ‘not guilty,’ without even consulting me,” Archuleta said. 

Archuleta continued to provide what he felt was evidence against Palen, stating Palen had promised Archuleta’s family to have the case wrapped up.

“I’m just not okay with a public defender telling me to come in here and lie to you, Your Honor,” Archuleta said.

“Wait a minute, that’s a serious accusation,” Buchanan said before Archuleta interrupted him. “There’s a big difference between saying – and you’re treading on very thin ice in this only because that is a serious accusation. You’re telling me that your attorney told you verbatim, Mr. Archuleta, you’re going to go into court and lie to the judge? I don’t think that’s what you’re telling me,” Buchanan said.

“Verbatim, Your Honor,” Archuleta said. 

Buchanan then placed Archuleta under oath and told him to take a few minutes and visit with his support system in the court room, his fiancé. 

After the brief recess, Buchanan returned to the bench. 

“Mr. Archuleta, I gave you a moment to speak with someone in the audience. I could tell, just for the record that she wanted to speak to the defendant about the conversation that was going on. I don’t know if that solved anything. At the end of the day, Mr. Archuleta, I don’t know what you want to do as far as and your choice are we can set this for trial or you can enter into some type of plea agreement, if there’s one on the table,” Buchanan said. 

Archuleta apologized for his conversation earlier about his representation, Palen. 

“I’m ready to enter a change of plea,” Archuleta said. “I just want to get this over with.”

Buchanan further advised Archuleta he did not want to accept the plea if Archuleta was under duress, feel like he has no choice or if promises have been made as a result of the change of plea. 

“I want to know everything because a change of plea has to be done knowingly and voluntary without duress, that’s number one,” Buchanan said. “Two, I want to know is you made a very serious allegation against your attorney, okay? You can either stick with that or not. Only you know. But that is taken very seriously. I want to know where your relationship stands with your attorney and what you want to do today. I want to know the reasons why you’re wanting to do it without your talking the facts of the case yet, okay? I want to preserve your right to remain silent at this time because you still have that right up and until you chose to change or plea.”

“I feel there is no other option at this point. I wasn’t even offered a plea deal. I’ve been here six months,” Archuleta said. 

Archuleta noted his relationship with his attorney was ‘not good.’

“You made a very serious allegation, very serious and you’re now under oath penalty of prudery which is a felony,” Buchanan said. “You either stick by the statement you made about ten minutes ago or you don’t and I will except an explanation as to why you don’t but I need to know because you made a very serious allegation against a member of the bar and if you’re wanting to change your plea, all of that goes into the calculus.” 

As deliberations continued, Boyer presented a plea deal to Buchanan and Archuleta. Archuleta was to plea “no contest” and the state would remain silent at sentencing. Boyer requested an updated presentencing investigation be done on Archuleta, prior to sentencing. Buchanan asked Palen if Boyer was correct on the plea deal which was offered.

“Yes, judge, that is. My notes show that I met with Mr. Archuleta on that same date, February 7, and my notes show that he agreed to that offer and agreed that we were going to plea ‘no contest,’” Palen explained.

“So, Mr. Archuleta, before we begin kind of where we left off, it sounds like the agreement that’s been offered by your own attorney to the state and the state agreed to is exactly what you were telling me you want to do. ‘No contest.’ Is that right or not right?” Buchanan said. 

Archuleta responded, “Yes, Your Honor.”

Buchanan accepted the plea and sentencing will take place after the pre-sentencing investigation report and court stood in recess.