Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

David Herrera, Jr. pled guilty to aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon and was sentenced to five to eight years in prison by the district court, which recommended his placement in the Youthful Offender Transition Program (YOTP). Herrera filed a motion for sentence reduction upon nearing completion of the YOTP, asserting that the district court had promised to reduce his sentence if he successfully completed the program.The district court denied Herrera’s motion for sentence reduction without holding a hearing or providing an explanation. Herrera appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion and violated his constitutional rights by not honoring the promise made during sentencing.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the district court’s oral pronouncement at sentencing, which stated Herrera “will get a sentence reduction” if he completed the YOTP, constituted an express commitment. The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying the motion for sentence reduction without justification, given the prior commitment. The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s decision and remanded the case for further sentencing proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Herrera v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

William Patterson was convicted of sexually abusing his girlfriend’s four-year-old niece. The incident occurred on September 15, 2019, when Patterson was watching the child and her twin sister. The children later reported the abuse to their mother, who contacted the police. The children were interviewed, and one disclosed the abuse. However, the district attorney initially decided not to charge Patterson. Three years later, the children provided more details, leading to charges against Patterson. He was convicted by a jury of second and third-degree sexual abuse of a minor.The District Court of Natrona County sentenced Patterson to 14-20 years in prison for second-degree sexual abuse of a minor, noting that the same act formed the basis for both convictions. Patterson appealed, arguing that the prosecutor improperly commented on his right to remain silent during the trial. The district court had denied Patterson’s motion for a mistrial, concluding that the prosecutor’s statement was not an improper comment on his right to remain silent and that any potential prejudice was mitigated by the court’s curative actions.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case and determined that the prosecutor’s statement during opening arguments, which mentioned Patterson’s refusal to speak with law enforcement, was an impermissible comment on his constitutional right to remain silent. The court reaffirmed that such comments are prejudicial per se under the Wyoming Constitution and require reversal of the conviction. The court overruled previous case law that allowed for a distinction between a “comment” and a “reference” to silence, clarifying that any improper comment on the right to silence is prejudicial per se. Consequently, the Supreme Court of Wyoming reversed Patterson’s conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. View "Patterson v. State" on Justia Law

Joseph W. Russell entered a conditional guilty plea to possession of methamphetamine, reserving his right to appeal the constitutionality of a warrantless search conducted as he entered the Uinta County Courthouse. The search, performed by Deputy Dan Jensen, involved a magnetometer alerting to metal in Russell's waist area, leading to a pat-down and the discovery of a snus can containing methamphetamine. Russell was charged with felony possession of a controlled substance.The district court denied Russell's motion to suppress the evidence, finding the search reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Russell entered a conditional guilty plea, allowing him to appeal the suppression order. He was sentenced to one to three years of imprisonment, suspended in favor of two years of supervised probation. Russell timely appealed the denial of his motion to suppress.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case, focusing on whether the search violated the Fourth Amendment. The court applied a three-part test to determine the reasonableness of the search: the nature and immediacy of the governmental concern, the efficacy of the search in addressing that concern, and the nature of the privacy interest upon which the search intrudes. The court found that courthouse security is a compelling governmental interest, the use of a magnetometer and follow-up searches are effective in addressing this concern, and the privacy interest in the snus can was minimal given the context of courthouse security.The court concluded that the search was reasonable and affirmed the district court's denial of Russell's motion to suppress. The holding emphasized that the search was justified under the special needs exception to the Fourth Amendment, balancing the government's interest in courthouse security against the minimal intrusion on Russell's privacy. View "Russell v. State" on Justia Law

Amy Romero was arrested for driving while under the influence of alcohol (DWUI) after being found stuck in a snowbank. Officer George Phillips of the Rawlins Police Department noticed the vehicle and, upon investigation, detected a strong odor of alcohol from Ms. Romero. During the interaction, Ms. Romero admitted to driving the vehicle and exhibited signs of intoxication. Officer Phillips placed her in the back of his patrol car to deescalate a potentially violent situation with her husband, Joseph Romero, who was also present and behaving aggressively.The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) upheld the suspension of Ms. Romero’s driver’s license, concluding that Officer Phillips had reasonable suspicion to detain her for a DWUI investigation. The OAH found that the officer’s actions, including placing Ms. Romero in the patrol car and transporting her to a dry environment for field sobriety tests, were justified based on the totality of the circumstances, including the strong odor of alcohol, her admission of driving, and the need to manage her husband’s aggressive behavior.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the OAH’s decision. The Court held that Officer Phillips’ detention of Ms. Romero in the back of the patrol car did not constitute an unlawful arrest but was a reasonable investigative detention supported by substantial evidence. The Court found that the officer’s actions were necessary to ensure safety and were within the scope of a lawful investigative detention. The Court concluded that the OAH’s findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the detention was in accordance with constitutional protections. The decision to uphold the suspension of Ms. Romero’s driver’s license was affirmed. View "Romero v. State of Wyoming Ex Rel., Wyoming Department of Transportation" on Justia Law

Solomon Bolen was convicted of multiple offenses, including attempted second-degree murder and aggravated assault and battery. Bolen appealed, arguing that the district court violated his due process rights by not instructing the jury on his plea of not guilty by reason of mental illness or deficiency (NGMI). He also claimed that his attorneys were ineffective for not seeking those instructions. Additionally, Bolen contended that his convictions for attempted second-degree murder and aggravated assault and battery violated his right against double jeopardy.The district court had found Bolen mentally fit to proceed with the trial. Despite Bolen's NGMI plea, the court-designated examiner, Dr. Wilkinson, opined that Bolen did not meet the statutory criteria for an NGMI defense. She noted that Bolen's altered state of mind and psychosis at the time of the crimes were caused by self-induced intoxication, which is specifically excluded from the statutory definition of mental illness or deficiency. Bolen's attorneys did not pursue the NGMI defense and focused instead on the self-induced intoxication defense.The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that Bolen did not present competent evidence to support an NGMI defense, and thus was not entitled to have the jury instructed on the defense. The court also found that Bolen's attorneys were not ineffective for not pursuing the NGMI defense, as the instructions would not have been proper even if they had renewed their request for them. Lastly, the court held that Bolen's convictions for attempted second-degree murder and aggravated assault and battery did not violate his right against double jeopardy, as the crimes contained separate elements. View "Bolen v. State" on Justia Law

In the case before the Supreme Court of Wyoming, State Representatives Rachel Rodriguez-Williams and Chip Neiman, and Right to Life of Wyoming, Inc., attempted to intervene in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of two Wyoming laws restricting abortion. The district court denied their motion to intervene, and they appealed that decision. The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the proposed intervenors did not meet the requirements for intervention as of right. The court found that the proposed intervenors did not demonstrate a significant protectable interest in the lawsuit. The court also found that the State of Wyoming, represented by the Attorney General, adequately represented the proposed intervenors' interests in defending the challenged laws. Additionally, the court found that allowing the proposed intervenors to participate in the lawsuit would unduly delay and prejudice the case's adjudication. Therefore, the court also denied the proposed intervenors' motion for permissive intervention. View "Rodriguez-Williams v. Johnson" on Justia Law

In this case, the City of Laramie, Wyoming, sued the University of Wyoming and its Board of Trustees, challenging the drilling and operation of certain water wells. The city argued that the university was in violation of a 1965 deed covenant prohibiting the drilling of one of the wells and was also in violation of a city ordinance. The city also claimed that legislation exempting the university from this city ordinance was unconstitutional. The district court dismissed some of the city's claims and granted summary judgment in favor of the university on the remaining claims. The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the university was protected by sovereign immunity from the city's attempts to enforce the deed covenant. It also held that the state law exempting the university from the city ordinance was constitutional. The court further noted that the law precluded the city from enforcing its ordinance against the university. View "City of Laramie, Wyoming v. University of Wyoming" on Justia Law

In Wyoming, Remi Larsen was facing a misdemeanor charge for possession of a controlled substance. Larsen moved to suppress evidence obtained during a warrantless search of her apartment. The trial court granted Larsen's motion, ruling that she did not voluntarily consent to the search. The State appealed this decision, resulting in the district court reversing the trial court's order. On further appeal, the Supreme Court of Wyoming held that the district court abused its discretion when it initially granted the State's petition for an interlocutory writ of review. The Supreme Court explained that the district court should only grant such a review in "rare and unusual" cases that present questions of first impression, constitutional magnitude, and great public import. The court found that Larsen's case did not meet these criteria. The court's order was reversed, and the lower court was directed to reinstate the original suppression order. View "Larsen v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence, holding that the district court did not err in ruling that res judicata barred Defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence.Defendant was convicted of second-degree abuse of a minor and soliciting a minor to engage in sexual relations and sentenced to twenty years as to the sexual abuse conviction and to four to five years on the solicitation conviction, to be served consecutively. Defendant later filed a pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that the acts underlying his conviction were one continuous act and that his consecutive sentences violated double jeopardy protections. The district court denied relief ruling that res judicata barred the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a motion to correct an illegal sentence can be subject to res judicata; and (2) the interests of res judictata in finality and avoiding repetitive litigation were served in this case. View "Peterson v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for interference with a peace officer, holding that the district court did not violate Defendant's due process rights by conducting a hearing under Asch v. State, 62 P.3d 945 (Wyo. 2003), in Defendant's absence after he refused to attend the hearing.Defendant, who was serving three consecutive life sentences at the Wyoming State Penitentiary, was charged with interference with a peace officer. Before the scheduled trial date, the State moved to require Defendant to be restrained during trial. The district court conducted an Asch hearing without Defendant and decided to impose restraints at trial. Defendant was convicted of one count of felony interference with a peace officer. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant waived any right he had to be present at the Asch hearing by knowingly and voluntarily failing to appear at the hearing due to circumstances within his control. View "Castellanos v. State" on Justia Law