Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A mother appealed the dismissal of a neglect case brought against her by the State of Wyoming. The case involved her two children, AB and JC. The mother was arrested for drug-related charges, and the children were placed in protective custody. JC was released to his father, who had primary custody, while AB was released to his paternal grandfather and later to his father, who lived in Texas. The State filed a neglect petition, and the juvenile court held hearings, during which the mother denied the allegations. The court initially placed AB with his paternal grandfather and later with his father.The juvenile court found the children had been neglected and ordered continued placement with their fathers while the mother completed a case plan. The State moved to dismiss the neglect petition after the mother made progress on her case plan and AB's father sought custody. The juvenile court initially dismissed the petition but vacated the dismissal after the mother objected. The court later set a permanency review hearing and maintained the status quo, allowing the mother to continue working on her case plan.The State again moved to dismiss the case, noting the mother’s progress and the existence of custody agreements for both children. The juvenile court dismissed the neglect petition, and the mother appealed. The Wyoming Supreme Court found the appeal moot because the State had dismissed the neglect action, and the mother had physical custody of AB. The court concluded that any judgment would have no practical effect on the existing controversy and dismissed the appeal. The court also determined that none of the exceptions to the mootness doctrine applied in this case. View "In the Interest Of: AB and JC" on Justia Law

Timothy Duke was identified as one of the burglars involved in the theft of numerous items from three properties owned by Joseph Walsh in Cheyenne. The stolen items included cash, collectible coins, firearms, trade tokens, and antique police badges. Following an investigation, police recovered some of the stolen items from Duke's home, vehicle, and trailer. Duke was charged with theft over $1,000 and aggravated burglary with a deadly weapon. He pled guilty to the aggravated burglary charge as part of a plea agreement, and the theft charge was dismissed. Duke agreed to pay restitution jointly and severally with his co-defendants.The District Court of Laramie County held a restitution hearing where Walsh testified about the stolen items and their estimated values. The court also considered a presentence investigation report and victim impact statements. The court ordered Duke to pay $507,000 in restitution, finding the State had provided sufficient evidence to support the amount claimed.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case to determine if the district court abused its discretion in setting the restitution amount. The court found that Walsh's testimony, the State's supporting exhibits, and the presentence investigation report provided a reasonable basis for the restitution award. Walsh's detailed testimony about the stolen items and their values, corroborated by the presentence investigation report and victim impact statements, was deemed credible and sufficient.The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the district court's restitution order, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion and that the restitution amount was supported by sufficient evidence. View "Duke v. State" on Justia Law

Jeremy Clay was arrested for traffic violations and drug offenses on September 23, 2023, and later charged with failure to register as a convicted sex offender. He pled guilty to the failure to register charge and was sentenced to three to five years of incarceration, with all but thirty days suspended, followed by three years of supervised probation. Clay did not appeal the original judgment and sentence. On June 28, 2024, the State filed a petition to revoke his probation, alleging violations including failure to contact his probation agent, leaving Wyoming without permission, and failing to make a required payment. Clay admitted to the violations at a hearing, and the court revoked his probation, sentencing him to nine months in jail, suspended in favor of a split sentence of seventy-two days in jail followed by three years of supervised probation. He timely appealed the probation revocation order.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case. Clay's appeal focused on alleged violations of his rights during the original criminal proceedings, including claims of Fourth Amendment violations, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of counsel. The State argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to review these claims because Clay did not appeal the original judgment and sentence within the required thirty days.The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order, applying res judicata principles. The court held that Clay's claims were barred by res judicata because he could have raised them in a direct appeal of the original judgment and sentence but failed to do so. The court determined that the parties, subject matter, and issues were the same in both the original criminal proceeding and the probation revocation, and Clay did not show good cause for failing to raise the issues earlier. As a result, Clay was not entitled to relief from the court. View "Clay v. State" on Justia Law

LaToya Adams (Mother) and Dominick Gallegos (Father) are divorced, with Father having primary physical custody of their minor children as per a district court order. Mother filed a motion for an order to show cause, seeking to hold Father in contempt of the custody order, alleging that Father was not allowing her visitation with the children. The district court denied her motion, leading to this appeal.The District Court of Laramie County had previously modified the custody arrangement in August 2023, granting Father physical custody and allowing Mother visitation as deemed safe and appropriate by Father. The order also required the children to remain in counseling and for the parties to follow the recommendations of the counselors regarding visitation. During the hearing, testimony revealed that Father had restricted Mother's contact with the children due to safety concerns, particularly for one child, Y.G., who had significant mental health issues exacerbated by contact with Mother. The district court found that Father acted in good faith based on the therapist's recommendation and did not violate the custody order, thus denying Mother's motion for contempt.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and noted several deficiencies in Mother's appeal, including the lack of a designated record and failure to comply with procedural rules. The court found that Mother's brief did not present cogent arguments or pertinent authority to support her claims. Consequently, the Wyoming Supreme Court summarily affirmed the district court's decision, upholding the denial of Mother's motion for an order to show cause. View "Adams v. Gallegos" on Justia Law

Spencer Sharpe (Father) appealed a district court order denying his motion to hold Amy Evans (Mother) in contempt for allegedly withholding his parenting time and excluding him from their children's medical decisions. The parties divorced in 2018, agreeing to share custody, with Mother having final decision-making authority and discretion to withhold Father's parenting time if his mental health was not properly managed. In 2021, both parties sought to modify custody, and the district court found Mother had unreasonably denied Father visitation. The court modified the custody order and held Mother in contempt for past violations.Mother appealed the modification, and the Wyoming Supreme Court upheld the modification but reversed the contempt finding, citing ambiguity in the decree. While the appeal was pending, an incident occurred where Mother took one child from Father's home after an argument, leading to further legal disputes. The district court found Mother in contempt for not allowing supervised visits but did not hold her in contempt for other denials of parenting time due to lack of evidence of Father's compliance with required psychological evaluations.Father filed another motion for contempt, claiming Mother continued to deny his parenting time and interfered with medical decisions. The district court found no willful contempt by Mother and ordered Father to undergo a new psychological evaluation. Father appealed, arguing constitutional violations and ADA issues, but these arguments were not raised in the lower court or pertained to orders not currently under appeal.The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order, finding no error in denying the contempt motion. The court also granted Mother's request for attorney's fees and costs, citing the lack of reasonable cause for the appeal and the absence of cogent argument and relevant legal authority in Father's brief. View "Sharpe v. Evans" on Justia Law

Clifford Bain was seriously injured when a bus owned and operated by the City of Cheyenne collided with him while he was riding his motorcycle. Bain filed a complaint against the bus driver and the City under the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act (WGCA). The bus driver and the City admitted liability but claimed immunity from any liability exceeding $250,000 under the WGCA. Bain then filed a motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that the limitation in § 1-39-118(a)(i) of the WGCA was unconstitutional under Article 10, § 4(a) of the Wyoming Constitution. The district court denied Bain’s motion, declaring the statute constitutional. Bain subsequently filed a petition for writ of review with the Wyoming Supreme Court.The district court denied Bain’s motion for partial summary judgment, holding that § 1-39-118(a)(i) of the WGCA is not a limitation on damages but rather a limitation on the waiver of immunity. Bain then filed a petition for writ of review, which the Wyoming Supreme Court granted.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court’s decision. The Court held that § 1-39-118(a)(i) is a limitation on the waiver of immunity under the WGCA and not a limitation on damages, thus it does not violate Article 10, § 4(a) of the Wyoming Constitution. The Court emphasized that the statute limits the legal responsibility or obligation of governmental entities and is consistent with the legislative intent to balance the equities between injured persons and taxpayers. The Court concluded that Bain did not meet his burden of proving the statute unconstitutional. View "Bain v. City of Cheyenne" on Justia Law

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Church) submitted a site plan and an application for a conditional use permit (CUP) to the City of Cody Planning, Zoning, and Adjustment Board (Board) for the construction of a temple. The Board approved the site plan and CUP application at a meeting on June 15, 2023. Preserve Our Cody Neighborhoods (POCN), an association of local landowners, opposed the construction and filed petitions for review in the district court challenging the Board's approvals.The district court determined that it lacked jurisdiction over POCN’s petitions because they were untimely. The court found that the Board had approved the site plan and CUP at the June 15, 2023 meeting, and any subsequent actions by the Board to reconsider or modify those approvals were unauthorized. POCN's petitions for review were filed more than 30 days after the June 15, 2023 meeting, making them untimely.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Court held that the Board's approval of the site plan and CUP at the June 15, 2023 meeting constituted final agency action, as it concluded the proceedings regarding the Church’s site plan and CUP application. The Court found that the Board did not have the authority to reconsider or modify its approvals at subsequent meetings. Therefore, POCN's petitions for review, filed in August 2023, were untimely, and the district court correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction to consider them. View "Preserve Our Cody Neighborhoods v. The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints" on Justia Law

Sandra Malone (Grandmother) filed a lawsuit against Salvador Galvan (Father) seeking visitation rights with ALG, the child of her deceased daughter. Father and Mother had a child, ALG, in July 2022. They regularly attended family dinners with Mother’s family, including Grandmother. After Mother’s death in an ATV accident caused by Father, Grandmother accused Father of killing Mother and supported his criminal prosecution. Father, concerned about Grandmother’s negative impact on ALG, stopped attending family dinners and discontinued visits between ALG and Grandmother, although he maintained relationships with other family members.The District Court of Albany County held a trial and granted Grandmother visitation rights. The court found that Grandmother had a significant preexisting relationship with ALG and concluded that Father’s decision to discontinue visits with Grandmother was harmful to ALG. The court awarded Grandmother visitation despite acknowledging concerns about her animosity towards Father and the potential negative impact on ALG.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case. The court held that the district court erred in its findings. It emphasized that Grandmother needed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Father’s decision to restrict visitation was harmful to ALG. The court found that Grandmother did not present any evidence of harm, while Father’s expert testified that visitation with Grandmother could harm ALG due to the hostile relationship between Father and Grandmother. The Supreme Court concluded that the district court violated Father’s constitutional rights as a parent by granting Grandmother visitation without sufficient evidence of harm to ALG.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reversed the district court’s decision, holding that the lower court clearly erred in finding that Grandmother established harm by clear and convincing evidence. View "Galvan v. Malone" on Justia Law

Law enforcement traced the online distribution of child pornography to the defendant after receiving a tip from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. A search of his home led to the discovery of numerous video files containing child pornography, and the defendant admitted to both possessing and distributing such material for profit. He was charged with 20 counts of Sexual Exploitation of a Child, with some counts relating to files uploaded on a specific date and others to files found on his computer during the search.The defendant pled guilty to all charges in the District Court of Big Horn County. He was sentenced to concurrent prison terms for counts 1–14 and separate concurrent terms for counts 15–20, with the latter to run consecutively to the former. The defendant did not file a direct appeal. Later, he filed a motion under Wyoming Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(a) to correct what he argued was an illegal sentence, claiming that the multiple convictions and sentences violated double jeopardy protections because they arose from the same act. The district court denied the motion, finding the sentences appropriate based on the guilty pleas and the evidence of separate acts.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case and held that the defendant’s double jeopardy claim was barred by res judicata because he could have raised it on direct appeal but did not, and he failed to show good cause for this omission. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion to correct the sentence. However, the Supreme Court identified a discrepancy between the oral and written sentences and remanded the case to the district court solely to correct the written sentence so that it conforms to the oral pronouncement. View "Bernard v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

Jackson Hole Hereford Ranch, LLC (JHHR) sought to partition real property it claimed to own as a tenant in common with Leeks Canyon Ranch, LLC (Leeks). Leeks counterclaimed, asserting sole ownership based on judicial estoppel, equitable estoppel, and adverse possession. The district court granted partial summary judgment to JHHR, dismissing Leeks’s judicial and equitable estoppel claims. After a bench trial, the court ruled against Leeks on the adverse possession claim. Leeks appealed both the summary judgment and the trial findings.The District Court of Teton County granted summary judgment to JHHR on Leeks’s judicial and equitable estoppel claims. The court found that Mr. Gill, representing JHHR, had forgotten about his 25% interest in the property during arbitration, negating the application of judicial estoppel. The court also found no evidence of willful misconduct or serious negligence by Mr. Gill, which is necessary for equitable estoppel. The court held that Mr. Gill’s statements during arbitration were not sufficient to establish estoppel.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decisions. The Supreme Court agreed that judicial estoppel did not apply because Mr. Gill’s prior position was based on a mistake. The court also upheld the summary judgment on equitable estoppel, finding no evidence of willful misconduct or serious negligence by Mr. Gill. Regarding adverse possession, the Supreme Court found that Leeks failed to prove that its possession of the property was hostile to JHHR’s interest. The court noted that Leeks did not provide clear notice to JHHR that its ownership was in jeopardy, a requirement for adverse possession among cotenants. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s rulings in favor of JHHR. View "Leeks Canyon Ranch, LLC v. Jackson Hole Hereford Ranch, LLC" on Justia Law