GOSHEN COUNTY – On Thursday, October 10 at 3 p.m. Judge Nathaniel S. Hibben called the Eight Judicial District Court of Goshen County in session where Goshen County Prosecuting Attorney, Eric Boyer represented the State of Wyoming and Eric Palen represented the defendant, Johnathan Cervantes, regarding case number 2024- 22.

An interrupter was provided for Cervantes. 

Upon calling the arraignment to order, Hibben asked Cervantes if he was under the influence of any medications, alcohol or substances or if Cervantes had any other conditions which would make it hard to communicate with the court. Cervantes answered no, through his interrupter, to both questions. Hibben asked Cervantes if he had received the “amended information” for the case, and Cervantes answered yes. Hibben then moved on to the charges Cervantes is facing. 

“I’m going to go over the charges contained in the document and explain the maximum penalties if you should either be guilty or found guilty after trial,” Hibben explained. “There are three counts contained in the amended information. The first count alleges that on or about August 11th of 2023, that you unlawfully operated or drove a vehicle in violation of Wyoming statute 31-5-233 b iii c and did operate or drive a vehicle in a reckless manner said conduct being the proximate cause of the death of another person, namely Leslie Thayer. If true, that would be contrary to Wyoming statute 6-2-106 (b) (i) and (ii), and this is called aggravated homicide by vehicle. “The maximum possible penalty, if you should either pled guilty or be found guilty after trial is not more than 20 years in prison, $10,000 fine for both. Do you understand the charge as contained in count one and the maximum possible penalties?” Hibben asked.

Cervantes responded yes, through his interrupter.

Hibben read count two, where Cervantes unlawfully operated or drove a vehicle in a reckless manner causing the death of Linda Thayer. Cervantes confirmed he understood the charge and the penalty associated with the charge, should Cervantes be found guilty or plead guilty. Hibben explained count two was a felony conviction. 

“I should mention, if I didn’t, count one is also a felony,” Hibben explained. “Count three alleges that on or about August 11, 2023, that you knowingly possessed without a valid prescription for authorization a controlled substance, specifically methamphetamine, and the amount of the substance so possessed was greater than three grams of a crystalline form that would be contrary to Wyoming statute 35-7-1031 (c) (i) (c) (ii) and that is called felony possession of the controlled substance methamphetamine. [The] maximum possible penalty is seven years in prison, a $15,000 fine or both. Do you understand the allegation and charges of count three and the maximum possible penalties if you should either plead guilty or found guilty after trial?” 

Cervantes responded yes, through his interrupter.

Hibben went over the types of pleas the court would accept and Hibben advised Cervantes of his constitutional rights.

“First, you have the right to plead guilty, not guilty, not guilty by mental illness or with permission of the court, you can plead no contest,” Hibben explained. “You also have the right to a speedy and public jury trial within 180 days of today’s date unless you were to waive your right for a speedy trial,” Hibben explained. 

Hibben explained Cervantes had been appointed Palen as his public defender. Cervantes acknowledged he was satisfied with his representation.

“Mr. Cervantes, you are presumed to be innocent of all wrongdoing and that presumption carries with you throughout these proceedings. At trial, the state has the burden of proving your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. At a trial, you would have no obligation to call witnesses or present any evidence and the jury would be instructed that it should find you not guilty if the state did not meet its burden of proof. In other words, you don’t have to prove anything the burden of proof is on the state of Wyoming,” Hibben explained. “Further you have the right to cross-examine and confront the witnesses the state may call to testify against you. Although you have no obligation to present evidence and the state maintains the burden of providing your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, you do have the right to present evidence.”

Hibben explained Cervantes could use the court process to produce physical evidence for trial if needed.

“Further, you have the right to remain silent which means you don’t have to testify,” Hibben explained. “You can never be completed to testify, answer any question or make any statements, either in or out of court so long as you maintain your plea of ‘not guilty’ at the trial, the jury would be instructed that it could draw no inference of guilt from the fact that you did not testify and that it could not consider the fact that you did not testify in any way during deliberations. By the same token, you may testify on your own behalf that is a decision that is your decision and your decision alone,” Hibben said. “If you chose to testify at your trial, you would be treated like any other witness that is you would be subject to cross-examination by the opposing party, the State of Wyoming, under plenty of prudery.”

Hibben also explained Cervantes had the right to appeal the jury’s finding of guilt as well as any sentence to the Wyoming Supreme Court. 

Cervantes stated he had no questions for Hibben. 

“Do you understand your constitutional rights?” Hibben asked Cervantes. 

Cervantes responded yes, through his interrupter.

“Mr. Palen, what are Mr. Cervantes’ intentions today?” Hibben asked. 

“Your Honor, my client’s going to plead ‘not guilty.’ Thank you,” Palen responded.

A ‘not guilty’ plea was entered for counts one, two and three for Cervantes.

“The court will issue a criminal case management order setting a jury trial within 180 days of today’s date,” Hibben explained. “There will be a number of timelines contained in the management order that Mr. Palen will discuss with you leading up to the trial date.”

With nothing further for Boyer, Palen or Hibben to discuss, the court went into recess.