The Wyoming Supreme Court issued an opinion January 22, 2026, addressing procedural requirements for probation revocation in *Jeremy S. Velasquez v. The State of Wyoming* (2026 WY 11). The case originated from the District Court of Goshen County under Judge Edward A. Buchanan and raises important questions about due process protections for probationers.
The case began when the State of Wyoming filed its third petition to revoke Jeremy Velasquez's probation. The district court scheduled an adjudicatory hearing where both parties presented evidence and arguments regarding the alleged probation violations. After taking a brief recess, the court determined that the State had proven the violations by a preponderance of the evidence.
The central issue in the appeal concerns what happened next. Without conducting additional proceedings, hearing further evidence, or allowing argument, the district court immediately found that the violations were willful, revoked Velasquez's probation, and imposed the previously suspended term of imprisonment. This sequence of events forms the basis of Velasquez's appeal to the Wyoming Supreme Court.
On appeal, Velasquez argued that the district court committed plain error by making determinations about willfulness, revoking probation, and imposing sentence without first conducting a separate disposition hearing. His legal team contended that he should have been afforded the opportunity to address the court before these critical decisions were made.
The case was argued before Chief Justice Boomgaarden and Justices Gray, Fenn, Jarosh, and District Judge Causey. Velasquez was represented by the Office of the State Public Defender, with Assistant Appellate Counsel Jeremy Meerkreebs presenting oral arguments. The state's position was argued by Senior Assistant Attorney General John J. Woykovsky.
The appeal highlights important procedural protections in probation revocation proceedings. Under established legal principles, probation revocation typically involves multiple stages: first, an adjudicatory hearing to determine whether violations occurred, and second, a disposition hearing to determine the appropriate consequences. The separate disposition phase traditionally allows defendants to present mitigation evidence and argue against revocation before the court makes its final decision.
Velasquez's appeal raises questions about the adequacy of procedural safeguards when courts move directly from finding violations to imposing consequences without an intervening disposition hearing. The concept of "plain error" in this context refers to obvious mistakes that affect substantial rights, even when not properly objected to at the trial level.
The case represents the third attempt by the State to revoke Velasquez's probation, suggesting a pattern of alleged violations that ultimately led to this Supreme Court review. The fact that this was the State's third petition indicates the case had a complex procedural history before reaching the final revocation proceedings that are the subject of the appeal.
Probation revocation proceedings carry significant consequences for defendants, as they can result in the imposition of previously suspended prison sentences. The procedural protections surrounding these hearings are designed to ensure that defendants receive due process before their liberty is restricted through incarceration.
The Wyoming Supreme Court's review of this case comes during its October 2025 term, and the opinion was issued as 2026 WY 11, indicating it was among the early decisions released in the new year. The case was assigned to District Judge Causey, who authored the opinion addressing the procedural issues raised by Velasquez's counsel.
The representation in the case reflects the serious nature of the proceedings, with Wyoming Attorney General Keith G. Kautz's office handling the state's appeal through senior-level prosecutors. Velasquez was represented by experienced appellate counsel from the State Public Defender's office, including Chief Appellate Counsel Kirk A. Morgan and Wyoming State Public Defender Brandon T. Booth.
This case contributes to the body of law governing probation revocation procedures in Wyoming and potentially affects how district courts conduct such proceedings statewide. The Supreme Court's analysis of whether the district court's streamlined approach constituted plain error will provide guidance for future probation revocation cases.
The timing and procedural posture of the case, coming after multiple petitions by the State, underscores the ongoing challenges in the probation system and the importance of maintaining proper procedural safeguards even in cases involving repeat alleged violations. The decision will clarify the extent to which courts must separate the adjudication of violations from the disposition of consequences in probation revocation proceedings.