Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a bench trial, Appellant was convicted of indirect criminal contempt, a common law crime, for failure to comply with an injunction and a nunc pro tunc amendment that allowed the county to enter Appellant's property and remove vehicles and trailers that violated county zoning ordinances. Appellant was sentenced to six months in the county jail, suspended in favor of unsupervised probation. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed Appellant's conviction, holding that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to prove willful disobedience of a reasonably specific court order beyond a reasonable doubt. Remanded to the district court with directions to vacate its judgment and sentence. View "Weidt v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of first degree sexual assault on a physically helpless woman. Appellant was sentenced to not less than seven nor more than twenty-two years confinement. On appeal, Defendant challenged the admission of certain evidence during trial and statements made by the prosecutor during rebuttal closing argument. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting statements Appellant made to police under Wyo. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(A); and (2) the prosecuting attorney did not make statements in rebuttal closing argument that were improper and prejudicial by arguing facts not in evidence. View "Leach v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charge of conspiracy to deliver methamphetamine. After the district court accepted the plea and scheduled a sentencing hearing, Appellant retained new counsel, who filed a motion to withdraw the plea. In support of the motion, counsel asserted, among other things, that a fair and just reason existed for allowing the withdrawal because Appellant asserted his innocence. The district court denied the motion after a hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court reasonably concluded that Appellant's assertion of innocence did not constitute a fair and just reason for allowing him to withdraw his plea. View "Russell v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant pled guilty to conspiracy to deliver methamphetamine. The district court sentenced Appellant to fifteen to twenty years imprisonment and recommended that Appellant complete intensive treatment for substance abuse. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment and sentence. Appellant subsequently filed a timely motion for a sentence reduction, which was denied. Thereafter, Appellant filed a second motion seeking to modify his sentence. The district court denied the motion on the grounds of untimeliness. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant's appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Appellant's motion was not filed within the required one-year time period under the relevant statute. View "Gomez v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to three burglary charges and was sentenced to terms in prison, with the sentences being suspended in lieu of one year in jail and seven years supervised probation. One of the conditions of Defendant's probation was to complete an in-patient substance abuse treatment program. After Defendant completed the program and was on intensive supervised probation, the district court revoked Defendant's probation and reinstated his original sentence due to probation violations. The district court awarded credit for thirty-six days of pre-sentence confinement and for 365 days Defendant served in the county jail but denied Defendant's petition seeking credit for the time he spent in the treatment program or on probation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant credit for the time he spent on intensive supervised probation. View "Yearout v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated vehicular homicide while driving under the influence of alcohol and two related DUI misdemeanors. On appeal, Defendant alleged, among other things, that her sentence was illegal because the district court entered separate convictions and sentences on the DUI counts, which were the same criminal act and charged in the alternative. The Supreme Court (1) reversed Defendant's conviction for aggravated vehicular homicide and remanded for a new trial because the district court erred in not allowing Defendant's expert witness to testify concerning her theory of defense to that charge; and (2) reversed the DUI convictions and remanded for entry of a new judgment and sentence convicting Defendant of one violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. 31-5-233 and imposing one sentence because the district court erred when it imposed sentences on both DUI counts under section 31-5-233(b). View "Stalcup v. State" on Justia Law

Appellants, two individuals, were arrested for driving while under the influence of alcohol (DWUI). Each appellant's blood-alcohol content was determined in accordance with the procedures set forth in Wyo. Stat. Ann. 31-6-102(d), which sets forth the procedure for remotely communicated search warrants in DWUI cases, in that the circuit court judge issued a remotely communicated search warrant after communicating via telephone with the arresting officer, who was under oath, and directed the officer to affix the judge's signature to the warrant. At issue before the Supreme Court was whether the requirements of section 31-6-102(2) are the equivalent of an affidavit under the State Constitution and whether the requirements of Wyo. R. Crim. P. 41(c), which provides the procedural requirements for the issuance of a search warrant, must be met. The Supreme Court answered certified questions of law by holding (1) the procedures set forth in section 31-6-102(d) do not violate the State Constitution; and (2) search warrants issued pursuant to section 31-6-102(d) must meet the requirements of Rule 41(c). View "Smith v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant entered an unconditional guilty plea to one count of incest for having sexual intercourse with his adult daughter. The district court sentenced Appellant to thirteen and a half to fifteen years imprisonment. Appellant appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment and sentence, holding (1) Appellant's guilty plea waived non-jurisdictional claims; (2) Appellant did not provide adequate grounds to support his claim of selective prosecution; (3) Appellant failed to establish that the district court relied on any allegedly inaccurate and improper information at sentencing; and (4) the remainder of Appellant's claims were without merit. View "Sisneros v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of a single count of felony larceny. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding (1) any deficiency in Defendant's trial attorney's failure to challenge a certain juror for cause was not prejudicial, and therefore, counsel did not provide constitutionally ineffective assistance; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to grant Defendant's motion for a new trial based on the claim that another juror was mentally incompetent; and (3) Defendant could not prevail on his claim that the cumulative effect of the alleged errors warranted reversal of his conviction, as the doctrine did not apply in this case. View "Moore v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of eleven counts of burglary. At his arraignment, Appellant peremptorily disqualified Judge Kalokathis and the case was assigned to a different judge. After Defendant was convicted, the case was again assigned to Judge Kalokathis for sentencing. Judge Kalokathis sentenced Appellant to a total of forty-four to eighty-eight years but later vacated Appellant's sentence because he had previously been disqualified. Judge Grant was assigned the case for resentencing and sentenced Appellant to a total of fifty-two to seventy-five years. Appellant's convictions were affirmed on appeal. Appellant later filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, asserting that Judge Grant improperly increased the original sentence in violation of his due process rights. The district court denied Appellant's due process claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant's claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata because Appellant failed to raise them in the direct appeal from his convictions; and (2) Appellant's sentence on resentencing did not violate his constitutional due process and double jeopardy protections. View "Ferguson v. State" on Justia Law