Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant Jerele Craig Cothren, Jr., was facing four separate sentences from three courts for unrelated crimes. The most recent sentence, and the one upon which this appeal was based, required that Appellant serve his term of incarceration concurrent with a sentence for which he was then presently incarcerated, as well as consecutive to a probationary period that had yet to begin. Because it was impossible to meet both these requirements, and because the sentence as pronounced would require the period of incarceration to be interrupted by a period of probation, the Supreme Court concluded Appellant's sentence was illegal. Appellant's case was remanded to the district court for resentencing. View "Cothren v. Wyoming" on Justia Law

After stopping Patrick R. Espinoza for failing to maintain a single lane of travel while driving on Interstate 80 (I-80) in Laramie, an Albany County Sheriff's deputy arrested Mr. Espinoza for driving while under the influence of alcohol. The Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT) suspended Mr. Espinoza's driver's license, and he objected. At the contested case hearing, Mr. Espinoza claimed the deputy was not justified in stopping him. The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) upheld the suspension, and the district court affirmed. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the deputy had probable cause to stop Mr. Espinoza for the traffic violation and affirmed. View "Espinoza v. Dept. of Transp." on Justia Law

PRG (Father) appealed a district court's order following a jury verdict terminating his parental rights to his four minor children. Father contended that the district court erred when it refused to use his proposed jury verdict form. He also claimed that the State Department of Family Services (DFS) presented insufficient evidence to terminate his parental rights and challenged the district court's denial of his motion for a judgment as a matter of law. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the special verdict form given to the jury was appropriate and the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing Father's proposed verdict form. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's decision to terminate Father's parental rights. View "In re Termination of Parental rights to: KMO, DMO, CMO, and AKO" on Justia Law

HJO (Mother), the biologic mother of nine minor children, appealed a district court's order following a jury verdict terminating her parental rights. Mother contested the sufficiency of the evidence presented by the State. Department of Family Services (DFS) to terminate her parental rights, the appropriateness of the special verdict form submitted to the jury, the constitutionality of the termination statute which set out the burden of proof, and alleged cumulative errors. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no reversible error and accordingly affirmed the termination of Mother's parental rights. View "In re termination of Parental Rights to: KMO, DMO, CMO, AKO, DKO, MTO, ABO, EEO, and JBO" on Justia Law

This appeal arose out of Ryan Dorman's petition for an extension of his worker's compensation temporary total disability (TTD) benefits and for reimbursement of travel expenses incurred in travelling from Idaho to Cheyenne to obtain medical care. In May 2006, Dorman sought treatment from an Idaho physician for treatment of his alleged work-related injury. Due to the nature of Dorman's injury, he consulted multiple physicians, first in Idaho, then in Wyoming. With each consultation, the doctors indicated that the injury was outside of their scope of expertise, and referred Doman to another specialist. During the period that Dorman was changing physicians, the Division and Dorman negotiated a stipulation concerning his TTD benefits and other benefits. This followed OAH and district court decisions that largely reversed the Division's earlier determinations concerning TTD benefits and Dorman's need for continued medical treatment. The Stipulated Order also provided that medical benefits would be paid as directed by the district court's order. After the Division paid the stipulated TTD benefits, Dorman submitted a letter to the Division requesting extended benefits The Division thereafter issued a final determination denying them, and further denied several applications for travel expense reimbursement for Dorman's trips to Idaho and Cheyenne. The matters were referred to the OAH where a combined hearing was held on the denial of TTD benefits, denial of travel reimbursement, and denial of diagnostic testing related to Dorman's injury. The OAH upheld the denial of TTD benefits on the ground that Dorman had failed to make the required showing that the Idaho and Cheyenne doctors were the closest available medical providers. Dorman appealed the portion of the OAH order denying extended TTD benefits and travel reimbursement to the district court. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the OAH denial of the travel reimbursement: Dorman could not prove that reimbursement of travel expenses was not supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law. View "Dorman v. Wyoming" on Justia Law

The Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division awarded benefits to Appellant Gary Mitcheson after he fell at work and injured his tailbone in July of 2007. Approximately two years later, the Division issued a final determination denying payment for medical care that Appellant claimed was related to his workplace injury. Appellant requested a contested case hearing, and the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) upheld the Division's determination. Appellant appealed to the district court, which upheld the OAH's order. On appeal, Appellant challenged the OAH order contending: (1) the order was arbitrary and unsupported by substantial evidence; (2) the OAH's denial of payment for treating Appellant's tailbone was arbitrary; and (3) the OAH order denying payment for medical care contrary to the "Rule Out" rule was contrary to law. Finding the issues Appellant raised on appeal to be without merit, the Supreme Court affirmed the OAH's decision. View "Mitcheson v. Wyoming" on Justia Law

Defendant Kevin Kidwell challenged his convictions for false imprisonment and simple assault. He claims the prosecutor committed misconduct by failing to give prior notice of evidence suggesting he had attempted to persuade a witness to testify falsely in his favor at trial in violation of W.R.E. 404(b). Defendant was charged with kidnapping and aggravated assault and battery after a 2010 incident where Defendant and his girlfriend got into an altercation. The girlfriend was admitted to the hospital with bruises and other symptoms from having been choked. The defense listed Andrew Scott as a witness. Scott had been Defendant's former cellmate while incarcerated, and reported on another altercation between Defendant and his girlfriend in which the girlfriend had been the aggressor. Although he had been listed as a defense witness, the prosecution called Scott to the stand and had him recount his original plan to testify in Defendant's favor and his subsequent change of heart. Defendant did not object to the State calling Scott as a witness nor Scott's story. A jury eventually returned a verdict "decidedly favorable" to Defendant: they acquitted him on the kidnapping and aggravated assault and battery charges, and the lesser included offense of felonious restraint. They convicted him however, of the lesser included misdemeanor, false imprisonment. The appeal came before the Supreme Court on an unusual procedural stance: although Defendant claimed the evidence of Scott's plan to testify falsely was "other bad acts" evidence and governed by W.R.E. 404(b), he did not specifically challenge the admissibility of the evidence or analyze it under the relevant factors. Instead, Defendant maintained that the prosecutor committed misconduct by failing to give Defendant notice of Scott's testimony. Finding that Defendant failed to demonstrate a clear violation of law or any prejudice, the Supreme Court affirmed his convictions. View "Kidwell v. Wyoming" on Justia Law

Defendant Michael Patterson challenged the sentence he was serving on his conviction as an accessory to second degree murder. Defendant was sentenced to a mandatory twenty-year term for his crime. Less than a month later, the State filed a “Motion for Correction of Sentence” in the case. The motion cited Wyo. Stat. Ann. 7-13-201, which requires that the minimum sentence be no greater than 90% of the maximum. The State asked to change the original sentence of 20-22 years to a sentence of 240-267 months, adding three months to the maximum sentence. The district court granted the motion the day after it was filed, and imposed a new sentence of 240-267 months. A year and a half later, Defendant filed a pro se Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence. He contended that a sentence of 20-22 years was illegal because it violated the requirement of Wyo. Stat. Ann. 7-13-201 that the minimum be no more than 90% of the maximum. He asserted that his sentence could not be legally increased after he had begun serving it, and proposed a new sentence of 19-22 years. Four months later, Defendant filed an Amended Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence. All of the previous post-sentencing pleadings filed by or on behalf of Defendant had recited that his sentence was 20-22 years. This amended motion was the first to recognize that his sentence had been increased to 240-267 months. Defendant argued that the increase in his sentence violated his rights against double jeopardy, and further, violated his rights to due process because the sentence was increased without notice to him and without an opportunity for a hearing. The Public Defender’s Office was appointed to represent Defendant, and it filed a supplemental motion and brief on his behalf. After a hearing, the district court set aside the previous order increasing Defendant's sentence from 20-22 years to 240-267 months, and reinstated the original sentence of 20-22 years. The district court acknowledged that this original sentence was technically illegal because the minimum exceeded 90% of the maximum. It noted, however, that the minimum sentence was only "90.09 percent rather than 90 or less" of the maximum sentence. The district court characterized this as a "small deviation," and concluded that "the original sentence was not illegal because it substantially complied" with the statute. Defendant appealed the district court's order. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that Defendant's original sentence was illegal and must be set aside. The Court concluded that the reinstituted sentence of 20-22 years was also illegal, and set that sentence aside too. The case was remanded for resentencing. View "Patterson v. Wyoming" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Vincent Scott of first degree sexual assault, aggravated assault, and child abuse. Scott appealed, claiming the district court denied his Sixth Amendment right to represent himself at trial and imposed an illegal sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court in this case had the discretion to deny Scott's untimely request to proceed without counsel, and although it erred in denying the request on the grounds that Scott's decision was not knowing and intelligent, the request was properly denied as untimely; and (2) the sentence imposed was not impossible or illegal because the district court awarded credit for time served, which made the sentencing scheme possible. View "Scott v. State" on Justia Law

A Wyoming Highway Patrol Trooper stopped Bryan Phelps and Justin Fitch for a traffic violation, detained them, conducted a drug dog sniff of their vehicle and, after the dog alerted to the presence of controlled substances, searched the vehicle and found marijuana. Phelps and Fitch were each charged with three felonies. They moved to suppress the evidence seized during the search, and the district court denied the motion. Phelps and Fitch subsequently entered pleas of guilty to one of the counts while reserving their right to appeal the denial of their suppression motion. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the suppression motion, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that probable cause existed for the search. View "Phelps v. State" on Justia Law