Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Steven Kruger pled guilty to felony child abuse. At the scheduled sentencing Kruger sought to withdraw the guilty plea. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial of Kruger's motion to withdraw his guilty plea, holding (1) considering the totality of the circumstances, Kruger's plea was knowing and voluntary; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Kruger did not present any "fair and just reason" to withdraw his guilty plea; and (3) Kruger's plea was not in the nature of an Alvord plea because Kruger never professed his innocence and did not meet his burden of proving that the victims recanted. View "Kruger v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant pled guilty to one count of interference with a police officer. The district court sentenced Appellant to three to six years incarceration. The prison sentence was suspended pursuant to the split sentencing provision of Wyo. Stat. Ann. 7-13-107, and Appellant was ordered to serve 180 days in jail, to be followed by four years of supervised probation. Later, Appellant admitted to violating his probation, after which the district court reimposed the original sentence, giving credit for time served. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that under the circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion in reimposing sentence after Appellant's probation was revoked. View "Castillo v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant David Walker was convicted of felony stalking as a result of an encounter with his ex-wife in violation of a permanent order of protection. A conviction for stalking required proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant engaged in a course of conduct reasonably likely to harass. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that plain error resulted when the trial court instructed the jury that evidence of acts comprising a course of conduct of harassment admitted as Wyo. R. Evid. 404(b) uncharged misconduct need only be proved by a preponderance of the evidence where a course of conduct of harassment is an element of the charged offense. View "Walker v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Enroe Jealous was convicted of aggravated assault and battery and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of three to eight years. Jealous appealed, contending that the district court committed reversible error when it failed to properly instruct the jury on the elements of the crime. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the jury was not misled or confused as to the elements of the crime; (2) the district court did not plainly err by failing to define the terms "intentionally," "knowingly," and "recklessly"; and (3) it was not plain error for he district court to instruct the jury that it could base its verdict on any and all proven theories of guilt. View "Jealous v. State" on Justia Law

A jury found Gloria Landeroz (1) guilty of aggravated assault and battery and (2) not guilty of attempted first degree murder and the lesser included offense of attempted second degree murder. The jury was unable to reach a verdict on the lesser included offense of attempted manslaughter. The State subsequently moved for dismissal of the attempted first degree murder charge without prejudice. The district court granted the motion. Landeroz appealed, claiming, inter alia, that the district court erred in dismissing the charge because in doing so it exposed her to double jeopardy. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment on the jury verdict but remanded for an entry of an order clarifying that the dismissal of the attempted first degree murder charge was "with prejudice" as to that offense, but "without prejudice" as to the lesser included offense of attempted manslaughter, holding (1) to the extent the dismissal without prejudice suggested Landeroz could be re-prosecuted for attempted first or second degree murder, the order violated the double jeopardy clause; and (2) Landeroz did not meet her burden of providing a Brady violation occurred, depriving her of due process. View "Landeroz v. State" on Justia Law

Brodey Burnett was convicted of attempted second degree murder and aggravated assault and battery. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the jury was properly instructed on the elements of attempted second degree murder; (2) the jury instructions regarding aggravated assault and battery causing serious bodily injury were not in error and caused no prejudice to Burnett; and (3) the fact that the statutory provisions defining the crimes of attempted second degree murder and aggravated assault and battery were overlapping did not deprive Burnett of his due process rights because the elements of the two crimes were not identical. View "Burnett v. State" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Varo Ken of attempted first degree murder and aggravated assault. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the district court for an evidentiary hearing on Ken's claim that counsel was ineffective. On remand, the district court concluded that Ken was prejudiced by counsel's failure to timely file a motion for a new trial because, had counsel timely filed the motion, the court would have granted it on the ground that the attempted first degree murder conviction was contrary to the weight of the evidence and may have resulted in a miscarriage of justice. After the case returned to the Supreme Court for consideration of the issues Ken presented in his appeal, the Court (1) held that Ken satisfied his burden to show ineffective assistance of counsel, and (2) reversed the attempted murder conviction and remanded the case for a new trial on that charge. View "Ken v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant's co-defendant was charged with one count of conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance and two counts of delivery of a controlled substance. Appellant was charged with a similar conspiracy count and with being an accessory before the fact to one of the controlled substance deliveries. Appellant was acquitted of the conspiracy charge but convicted of the accessory charge. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in joining Appellant's case with that of her co-defendent; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination of a witness, in admonishing the co-defendant's counsel in that regard, and in giving the jury a curative instruction; and (3) the verdict was supported by sufficient evidence. View "Earley v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant Jeramie Large was charged with six crimes arising from an incident when he stole and crashed a vehicle. Large appealed, claiming (1) his right to a speedy trial was violated and (2) he was denied his right to counsel without being adequately instructed and warned of the dangers of proceeding without counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant was afforded a speedy trial as it occurred without the 180-day time period required by Wyo. R. Crim. P. 48, and any delays did not violate Appellant's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial; and (2) Appellant's right to counsel was not violated as the district court adequately instructed Appellant on the dangers of proceeding without counsel. View "Large v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant Danny Rodgers was convicted of check fraud, driving while intoxicated, felony identity theft, and two counts of forgery. Rodgers appealed, raising, among other claims, claims of evidentiary insufficiency and a speedy trial violation. The Supreme Court (1) reversed Rodgers' check fraud conviction, holding that there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction under Wyoming law; (2) reversed Rodgers' felony identity theft conviction because the facts did not support the felony conviction as defined by Wyo. Stat. Ann. 6-3-901(c), and ordered entry of a misdemeanor identity theft conviction because the jury's verdict supported Rodgers' conviction for that lesser-included offense; and (3) held that Rodgers' right to a speedy trial under Wyo. R. Crim. P. 48(b) was not violated under the facts of this case. Remanded for resentencing on the conviction of misdemeanor identity theft. View "Rodgers v. State" on Justia Law