Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellees, Shari and Steve Skaj, brought suit against Appellant Vincent Rosty to recover damages caused when an idling dump truck that had been driven by Appellant was knocked into gear, pinning Shari against a motor home. Appellant failed to plead or otherwise defend against the allegations in the complaint. The district court subsequently entered default judgment against Appellant and awarded damages to Appellees. The court then denied Appellant's motion to set aside entry of default or for relief from default judgment. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) Appellant's appeal was timely; (2) the district court did not violate Appellant's due process rights, as Appellant had adequate notice of the default judgment hearing and thus had a meaningful opportunity to be heard at the hearing; (3) Appellant was properly served with the summons and complaint; (4) the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Appellant's motion to set aside entry of default and default judgment; and (5) the district court abused its discretion in awarding punitive damages, as Appellees failed to produce sufficient evidence of Appellant's wealth or financial condition to support an award of punitive damages. Remanded. View "Rosty v. Skaj" on Justia Law

After initiating a traffic stop, a highway patrol trooper found marijuana in Jason Holohan's vehicle. Holohan was charged with two counts of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. Holohan filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized during the search of his vehicle, claiming the trooper lacked probable cause or reasonable suspicion to justify the traffic stop at the time he activated his flashing lights and could not use events occurring after activating his lights to justify the stop. The district court agreed and granted the motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) because Holohan did not submit to the trooper's show of authority in activating his lights, there was no Fourth Amendment seizure until the vehicle pulled off the highway and stopped; and (2) at the point that the vehicle pulled off the highway, the trooper had probable cause to stop the vehicle for weaving erratically and a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity based upon Holohan's failure to pull over in response to the flashing lights. View "State v. Holohan " on Justia Law

Appellant Roger Snow was convicted of felony burglary and a related misdemeanor. Snow appealed, contending that the district court erred when it denied his request for a new attorney and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court met its obligation to inquire about Snow's request for substitute counsel, and therefore the court did not abuse its discretion in addressing Snow's desire for substitute counsel; and (2) Snow failed to show he was entitled to a lesser-included offense instruction, or that his attorney's failure to request such an instruction so prejudiced him as to require reversal. View "Snow v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant Carl Peterson was convicted of second degree sexual abuse of a minor and soliciting a minor to engage in sexual relations. Peterson appealed, raising multiple allegations of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding (1) Peterson failed to demonstrate that counsel's investigation and evaluation of a witness's likely testimony was flawed and outside the realm of professionally competent assistance; (2) Peterson failed to show that counsel was ineffective at the victim's competency hearing; (3) trial counsel was not ineffective in his cross-examination of the victim; and (4) counsel was not ineffective in his questioning of jurors during the voir dire process. View "Peterson v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant Wyatt Bear Cloud and two co-defendants were involved in an armed burglary of a residence in which one of Bear Cloud's co-defendants shot and killed one of the home's residents. Bear Cloud, who was sixteen years old at the time of the offenses, ultimately pleaded guilty to felony-murder, conspiracy to commit aggravated burglary, and aggravated burglary. Bear Cloud was sentenced to life imprisonment for his conviction for felony-murder. The Supreme Court affirmed Bear Cloud's convictions and sentences in their entireties, holding, inter alia, (1) Appellant's trial counsel was not ineffective in her representation of Bear Cloud; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to transfer proceedings to juvenile court; (3) a life sentence for a juvenile who did not commit homicide does not violate the Eighth Amendment of the federal constitution or Wyo. Const. art. I, 14; and (4) Wyo. Stat. Ann. 6-2-101(b) is not rendered unconstitutional by its mandatory sentencing structure, even as applied to a juvenile offender, and particularly in light of the district court's ability to consider mitigating circumstances when considering whether to transfer proceedings to juvenile court. View "Bear Cloud v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of first-degree sexual assault and robbery. After losing his appeal, Appellant filed a verified petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that his appellate counsel was ineffective. The district court granted the State's motion to dismiss, concluding that Appellant's claim was procedurally barred pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. 7-14-103(a)(iii) because he raised a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel in his direct appeal, which was decided on the merits. The Supreme Court likewise dismissed the petition, holding (1) where a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel has been raised and decided against the appellant in his direct appeal, he may not raise a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, based upon different allegations, in a petition for post-conviction relief, as the claim is procedurally barred by section 7-14-103(a)(iii); and (2) a stand-alone claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is not cognizable under the post-conviction relief statutes because post-conviction relief is limited to the alleged denial of constitutional rights during the proceedings that resulted in conviction. View "Schreibvogel v. State " on Justia Law

A police officer was presented with an emergency situation when, upon entering Appellant Joseph Owens' motel room, he found Appellant convulsing on the floor. The officer subsequently searched Appellant's backpack and the containers found therein in an attempt to aid Appellant and discovered methamphetamine. Appellant subsequently entered a conditional guilty plea to felony possession of methamphetamine. Owens reserved the right to appeal the constitutionality of the search that resulted in discovery of the methamphetamine. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that under the circumstances presented, the State satisfied its burden of establishing specific and articulable facts showing that the search was justified pursuant to the officer's community caretaker function. View "Owens v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant Derrick Brock, the assistant manager at a restaurant, failed to deposit the restaurant's previous two day earnings at the bank, and afterwards, never returned to work. Following a jury trial, Appellant Derrick Brock was convicted of larceny by bailee. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to call investigating officers to testify regarding their investigation; (2) trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to investigate or interview or call key witnesses with possibly exculpatory information; and (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sustaining the prosecution's objection to cross-examination of a witness regarding statements made to the police. View "Brock v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant, Andy Lovato, entered a conditional guilty plea to one count of possession of methamphetamine. Appellant appealed, claiming the district court incorrectly concluded that his right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures was not violated when he was seized by the police. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err when it denied Appellant's motion to suppress evidence because the police had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity justifying briefly detaining Appellant for further investigation; and (2) the police had probable cause to arrest Appellant for interference when a peace officer after he failed to obey one officer's commands to stop and then struggled with the police officers. View "Lovato v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant Timothy Shaeffer was convicted of aggravated assault and battery after he waved around a flare gun during an altercation at a bar. On appeal, Appellant claimed he was subject to numerous errors, which affected his right to a fair trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to appoint Appellant new counsel on the second day of trial; (2) the trial court did not violate Appellant's right to self-representation, as Appellant never made an unequivocal request to represent himself; (3) the trial court did not require Appellant to wear excessive physical restraints, and the trial court's failure to not instruct the jury regarding the shackles did not constitute plain error; (4) after Appellant had been deemed competent to proceed, the circumstances at trial were not such that would have required an additional competency evaluation; (5) the trial court did not exhibit judicial bias against Appellant; and (6) the State did not provide the trial court with inappropriate or incorrect information at the sentencing hearing. View "Schaeffer v. State" on Justia Law