Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant entered a conditional no contest plea to possession of methamphetamine with the intent to distribute. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress and finding that Defendant consented to continued detention when law enforcement told him “he was free to leave” but continued to have [its] red and blue emergency overhead lights activated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, under the totality of the circumstances in this case, a reasonable person in Defendant’s position would have felt free to decline the law enforcement officer’s request, and therefore, the contact between the officer and Defendant was consensual. View "Tibbetts v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant Bruce Williams asked the Circuit Court for a copy of part of a presentence investigation report in a criminal case. The circuit court denied his request. He brought a petition for a writ of mandamus asking the district court to require that the circuit court release the records. The district court dismissed the case. He appealed, claiming a constitutional right as a member of the public to access these records. Because he did not present his constitutional arguments to the district court, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Williams v. Tharp" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance. The district court sentenced Appellant to not less than four years nor more than eight years in prison. Appellant appealed, claiming that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because “a skilled criminal defense advocate would likely be able to secure a more favorable agreement than was obtained in his current sentence.” The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to establish that he was prejudiced by counsel’s alleged deficient performance, and therefore, it was unnecessary to address the deficiency prong of the ineffectiveness standard. View "McNaughton v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of attempted second-degree murder and aggravated assault and battery. The district court sentenced Defendant to forty to fifty years in prison for the attempted murder and to a term of fifteen to fifty years for the aggravated assault and battery. Defendant appealed, challenging his sentences. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the cumulative sentences Defendant received upon conviction of the offenses of attempted second-degree murder and aggravated assault and battery did not offend principles of double jeopardy; and (2) the statutes under which Defendant was convicted were not unconstitutionally vague, either on their face or as applied to the facts of Defendant’s case. View "Jones v. State" on Justia Law

After a four-day jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of multiple counts of first degree sexual assault, battery, and unlawful contact without bodily injury. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress statements he made to a nurse during a sexual assault examination in an alleged violation of Defendant’s rights under Miranda v. Arizona; and (2) Defendant was not denied his right to a speedy trial under Wyo. R. Crim. P. 48(b) and the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. View "Tate v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was sentenced to two life sentences according to law for crimes he committed in the 1990s. In 2015, Defendant filed a complaint against the Wyoming Board of Parole and the Wyoming Department of Corrections pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, alleging various constitutional violations. The district court dismissed Defendant’s claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Wyo. Stat. Ann. 7-16-2016(a)(i) does not violate Defendant’s equal protection rights because there is a legitimate state interest in treating prisoners differently with respect to the statute; (2) the Wyoming Department of Corrections’ good time policy does not violate Defendant’s equal protection rights because prisoners serving life according to law and prisoners serving a term of years sentence are not similarly situated; (3) the enactment of section 7-16-205(a)(i) did not impliedly repeal Wyo. Stat. Ann. 7-13-402(a); (4) the Wyoming Board of Parole did not violate the doctrine of separation of powers by enacting policies governing the commutation application procedure; (5) Defendant’s due process rights were not violated by the amendment to the commutation application procedure; and (6) the Wyoming Board of Parole’s amendment to the commutation application procedure did not violate Defendant’s constitutional protection against ex post facto laws. View "Bird v. Wyoming Board of Parole" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of seven counts of felony forgery and one count of misdemeanor theft. Defendant appealed, alleging that her prosecution was motivated by prosecutorial vindictiveness, that she received ineffective assistance of counsel, that the prosecutor argued facts not in evidence during closing arguments, that the district court erred by failing to provide supplemental instructions to the jury, and that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was no plain error in Defendant’s claim of vindictive prosecution, in Defendant’s claim of prosecutorial misconduct, or in the district court’s refusal to provide supplemental instructions to the jury; (2) Defendant’s right to effective assistance of counsel was not violated; and (3) Defendant’s convictions were supported by sufficient evidence. View "Mraz v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant, an inmate at Wyoming’s medium-security correctional facility in Torrington, wrote a letter to the warden asking to inspect certain public records of that institution. The institution’s employees provided him with some, but not all, of the requested documents. Appellant subsequently filed a complaint for order of enforcement and request to show cause, asserting that because the institution’s employees had not timely completed their efforts to fulfill his records requests they effectively refused to comply under the law. The institution subsequently made available to Appellant the remainder of the requested records. Thereafter, the district court dismissed Appellant’s complaint. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) properly confined the scope of its review to that permitted by the Wyoming Public Records Act, (2) properly found that Appellees fully complied with Appellant’s records request, and (3) properly received information regarding the warden’s initial response to that request. Further, there was no preemption of the WPRA. View "Guy v. Lampert" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance, unlawful possession of a controlled substance, and obstruction of a peace officer. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the stop of his vehicle was unlawful. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the traffic stop and investigatory detention of Defendant were reasonable. Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea to all three charges. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err when it denied Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence, as the information available to the officer at the time he made the traffic stop could give rise to a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. View "Jennings v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of possessing small amounts of morphine and methamphetamine. The offenses were felonies due to Defendant’s prior controlled substance convictions. The district court sentenced Defendant to concurrent sentences of two to five years in prison. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentence, holding (1) Defendant’s counsel was not ineffective for failing to move to suppress the evidence found during the warrantless search of Defendant’s backpack; (2) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant’s convictions; and (3) the district court properly rejected Defendant’s request for an additional instruction on constructive possession. View "Lemley v. State" on Justia Law