The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Frank Deede’s motion to reduce the amount he owed Kerry Wallace, his former wife, pursuant to the terms of the parties’ divorce settlement agreement and the district court’s subsequent contempt orders, holding that the district court acted well within its equitable power and sound discretion when it denied Frank’s motion to modify amount due. Frank’s motion to modify amount due was based on Frank’s assertion that some of the underlying debt was forgiven. The district court denied the motion, finding that Frank had failed to prove that the amount due was incorrect or that Frank had established that he should be given credit against Bank of America debt. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Frank’s motion to modify amount due; and (2) Kerry was entitled to an award of fees and costs because Frank failed to present a cogent argument on appeal. View "Deede v. Deede" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision denying Defendant’s motion for sentence reduction, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. Defendant pled guilty to five felonies involving child sexual abuse. The district court accepted Defendant’s plea and the sentence to which the parties agreed. The court then entered its judgment and sentenced Defendant to an aggregate term of forty-five to fifty years in prison. Defendant later filed a pro se motion for sentence reduction, citing his good behavior in prison and attaching a letter from his mother and a certificate of completion of a victim impact course. The district court denied the motion, determining that Defendant failed make a showing that justified or required a modification or reduction of his sentences. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that none of the grounds Defendant raised on appeal provided a basis for reversal of the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion for sentence reduction. View "Hall v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to correct an illegal sentence, in which Defendant claimed that he had not received adequate credit for time spent in confinement, holding that there was an eleven-day shortfall in the total presentencing confinement credit due Defendant. Specifically, the Court held (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant credit for the nonresidential portion of his participation in a Volunteers of America program; but (2) the district court erred in failing to grant Defendant a total of 933 days of presentencing confinement credit. View "Hutton v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants on Plaintiff’s complaint claiming fraud, negligent misrepresentation, conversion, and civil conspiracy, holding that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff, Action Snowmobile & RV, Inc. (Action), filed this complaint against Defendants, Most Wanted Performance, LLC and one of its owners (collectively, Most Wanted) regarding the circumstances under which Most Wanted purchased Action. The district court concluded that Action had failed to provide any evidence that would support the claims in the complaint and, therefore, granted summary judgment for Most Wanted. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that summary judgment was properly granted in favor of Most Wanted because Most Wanted presented a prima facie showing that there were no genuine issues of material fact regarding any of the claims in Action’s complaint and Action failed to produce competent and admissible evidence demonstrating that any material facts were in dispute. View "Action Snowmobile & RV, Inc. v. Most Wanted Performance, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decree entered in divorce proceedings involving Husband and Wife and denied Husband’s request to remand or grant leave for the district court to hear a Wyo. R. Civ. P. 60 motion, holding that the district court did not improperly modify its prior oral ruling distributing the parties’ property. Specifically, the Court held (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion by entering a written decision and a divorce decree that varied from the court’s oral statements at trial because the court had discretion to issue a decree that was inconsistent with the court’s statements at trial; and (2) because the record did not reflect that a Rule 60 motion was ever filed and the parties did not claim to have filed one, Husband’s request regarding the Rule 60 motion was denied. View "Schmalz v. Schmalz" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court answered a question certified to it by the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming concerning the definition of “sell” or “sale” set forth in Wyo. Stat. Ann. 12-1-101(a)(xvi), holding that that the statutory definition of “sell” or “sale” applied to the conduct of Traveling Vineyard and its Independent Wine Guides (collectively, Appellants). Michaela Robinson was a Wyoming resident and an independent contractor for Traveling Vineyard, a Massachusetts LLC with three federal and state licensed, bonded wineries. Robinson was known as an Independent Wine Guide, who earned compensation for promoting products at in-home wine tastings. The Wyoming Department of Revenue, Liquor Division asserted that some aspects of Traveling Vineyard’s business model and some of its Independent Wine Guides’ activities were in conflict with Wyoming State Statutes, Title 12, Alcoholic Beverage Control Laws and Wyoming Liquor Division rules and policies. In response, Appellants sought a declaration that the Division improperly interpreted the definition of “sale” in section 12-1-101(a)(xvi) and applied it to them. The federal court certified to the Supreme Court a question of state law. The Supreme Court answered that the statutory definition of “sell” or “sale” applied to the conduct of Appellants. View "Phoenix Vintners, LLC v. Noble" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed all of Defendant’s convictions except for his conviction for obtaining property by false pretenses, which the Court reversed, holding that the evidence was insufficient to support Defendant’s conviction for obtaining property by false pretenses. The Court further held (1) sufficient evidence supported Defendant’s convictions for performing the duties of a sheriff prior to qualifying and for submitting false claims with intent to defraud; and (2) as regards Defendant’s convictions for acting as a public officer prior to qualifying, submitting false claims, and wrongfully taking or disposing of property, Defendant did not demonstrate any cumulative error that could have constituted prejudice or rendered his trial unfair. View "Haskell v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant’s conviction of driving under the influence of alcohol (fourth or subsequent offense within ten years), holding that the State presented sufficient evidence to support Appellant’s conviction. The State charged Appellant with driving under the influence, Appellant’s fourth offense within ten years, in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. 31-5-233(b)(i). A jury returned a guilt verdict on the charge of driving under the influence and made a supplemental finding that Appellant had three previous convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol within ten years. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the conviction. View "Hyatt v. State" on Justia Law

In this appeal from the juvenile court’s order on permanency hearing, the Supreme Court held that Father was not prejudiced by the juvenile court’s delay in appointing an attorney until shortly before the permanency hearing, and the juvenile court did not err in denying Father’s request for transport to the hearing. At issue on appeal was whether the juvenile court (1) violated Father’s due process rights when it did not advise him of his right to counsel and did not appoint an attorney until shortly before the permanency hearing, and (2) erred in denying Father’s request for transport to attend the hearing in person. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the juvenile court violated a clear rule of law when it failed to advise Father of his right to counsel at his first appearance in the proceeding and failed to act on Father’s initial request for appointment of counsel, but these errors did not materially prejudice Father; and (2) Father’s due process rights were not violated when the juvenile court denied Father’s request for transport to the permanency hearing. View "FH v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment to Defendants in this negligence action, holding that there were no genuine issues of material fact as to the issues on appeal. Skylar Dimick was injured when he fell into a septic tank on property owned by Scott Hopkinson. Dimick and his wife filed a negligence action against Hopkinson and his businesses, family trust, and wife, Chris Hopkinson. Plaintiffs sought punitive damages for Defendants’ alleged willful and wanton misconduct. The district court granted summary judgment to Defendants, concluding (1) Scott and his businesses were protected by a valid release of liability signed by Dimick, (2) Scott committed no willful and wanton acts, (3) Chris was neither a proximate cause of Dimick’s injuries nor engaged in a joint venture with Scott, and (4) the family trust did not exist. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly granted summary judgment as to all Defendants. View "Dimick v. Hopkinson" on Justia Law