Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pleaded no contest to second degree sexual abuse. Defendant was previously convicted of a similar offense and specifically acknowledged in the plea agreement that the sentence for a second conviction of second degree sexual abuse of a minor was life in prison without the possibility of parole. The district court sentenced Defendant to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s sentence of life without the possibility of parole did not violate the Eighth Amendment because it was not grossly disproportionate to the crime; and (2) the sentence did not violate Wyo. Const. art. I, 14. View "Norgaard v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was charged with four drug-related felonies. Appellant filed a motion and an amended motion to suppress the evidence police officers obtained against him in a search of Appellant’s apartment. The district court denied the motion, and Appellant entered a conditional guilty plea to felony possession of marijuana. Appellant appealed, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court (1) erred in concluding that the initial intrusion into Appellant’s apartment was lawful and justified by the emergency assistance exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement; and (2) correctly found that Appellant’s consent to the police’s later entry into and search of his apartment was voluntarily given. Remanded for a ruling on whether Appellant’s consent was tainted by the initial unlawful search of his apartment. View "Campbell v. State" on Justia Law

In 2011, after a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated burglary and kidnapping and found to be a habitual criminal. The district court sentenced Defendant to two concurrent life sentences. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences. In 2013, Defendant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that one of the convictions the district court relied upon for the habitual criminal determination and the life sentences occurred when he was only sixteen years old and that consideration of that offense to impose a life sentence was unconstitutional under Miller v. Alabama. The district court denied Defendant’s motion to correct an illegal sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the sentencing scheme at issue here did not mandate a life sentence for a juvenile, and therefore, Miller did not apply. View "Counts v. State" on Justia Law

Twelve-year-old J.K. underwent an appendectomy performed by Appellee, but complications arose requiring additional surgery and medical treatment. Appellants, on behalf of J.K., filed a medical malpractice claim against Appellee. Appellee moved to dismiss, alleging that the claim was barred by the two-year statute of limitations contained in Wyo. Stat. Ann. 1-3-107(a)(ii). The district court granted the motion. Appellants appealed, arguing that the statute, as applied to minors, violates the Wyoming Constitution. The Supreme Court agreed and therefore reversed, holding that section 1-3-107(a)(ii) violates the open courts provision of Wyoming’s Constitution by restricting a minor’s access to the courts. Remanded. View "Kordus v. Montes" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant pled guilty to two misdemeanor counts of sexual battery. The district court sentenced Appellant to the maximum penalty of two consecutive one-year terms of incarceration with a portion of his sentence suspended in favor of probation. The State later filed a petition to revoke Appellant’s probation for violating the conditions of his probation. Appellant elected to represent himself during the revocation proceedings. The district court found that Appellant had violated his probation and imposed the suspended jail sentence. Appellant appealed, asserting that the district court failed to properly advise him about the dangers of representing himself in the revocation proceedings, and therefore, his decision to forego counsel was not knowing and intelligent. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that although the advisements given by the district court did not satisfy Faretta v. California and its progeny, Appellant’s waiver of his right to counsel was knowing and intelligent. View "Reifer v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant, an inmate serving a sentence of life imprisonment, filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 civil rights action against Appellees, three employees of the Wyoming Department of Corrections, alleging that Appellees violated his federal constitutional right to due process by placing his earnings in a mandatory savings account from which he could not withdraw without a hearing. The district court dismissed the complaint. Appellant did not appeal the order dismissing his case but, instead, filed a motion for relief from the order of dismissal under Wyo. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5) and (6). The district court denied the rule 60(b) motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion and that Appellant failed to show that his failure to receive Appellees’ response to his motion deprived him of due process. View "Nicodemus v. Lampert" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of four counts of sexual abuse of a minor in the second degree and was sentenced to thirteen to fifteen years on each count, to be served consecutively. The Supreme Court affirmed on appeal. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se motion for sentence reduction pursuant to Wyo. R. Crim. P. 35(b) requesting that the district court merge his sentences on the grounds that all of the charges stemmed from the same offense and therefore violated the prohibition against double jeopardy. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant’s claim was barred by res judicata because he failed to present his double jeopardy claim in his initial appeal. View "Leonard v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was a juvenile when he was convicted in 1995 of felony murder and sentenced to life in prison, a sentence that was by operation of law the equivalent of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. In 2013, Defendant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that his sentence of life without the possibility of parole was unconstitutional under Miller v. Alabama. The district court certified two questions to the Supreme Court regarding the retroactivity of Miller. The Supreme Court held (1) the proper rule for determining whether a new constitutional rule applies retroactively to cases on collateral review is the test announced by the U.S. Supreme Court in Teague v. Lane; (2) under a Teague analysis, the rule announced in Miller applies retroactively to cases on collateral review; and (3) by operation of the amended parole statutes, the current sentence Defendant was serving was life with the possibility of parole after twenty-five years of incarceration. View "State v. Mares" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to five counts of second-degree sexual abuse of a minor. The district court sentenced Defendant to terms of imprisonment and ordered that Defendant be given credit for 721 days of pre sentence confinement. The court, however, did not specify how those days should be applied to Defendant's sentence. Defendant appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed on all issues but remanded to the district court to specify how the credit for presentence confinement should be applied, holding (1) the prosecutor did not breach the plea agreement or engage in prosecutorial misconduct; and (2) the sentence’s reference to credit for presentence confinement was not sufficiently specific to comply with Wyo. R. Crim. P. 32(c)(2)(F). View "Deeds v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of first degree sexual assault for forcing a young woman to perform oral sex on him. Defendant appealed, arguing that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in three respects. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction and sentence, holding that Defendant did not prove that his counsel was constitutionally ineffective for (1) seeking to introduce evidence under Wyoming’s rape shield statute; (2) failing to investigate Defendant’s “probable level of intoxication” before an interview with law enforcement; and (3) failing to object to a statement made by the prosecutor during her rebuttal closing argument. View "McGarvey v. State" on Justia Law