Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant appealed his conviction and sentence, as well as a denial of his new trial motion, after he was found guilty of attempted second degree murder, aggravated assault and battery, felony possession of a controlled substance, and interference with an emergency call. Appellant raised five issues of error on appeal. The court held that the district court did not err when it denied appellant's motion for judgment of acquittal where he waived his right to challenge the district court's ruling in his appeal and that the district court did not abuse its discretion and properly admitted the statements at issue as excited utterances under W.R.E. 803(2). The court also held that there was no plain error when the district court referred to the complaining witness as "the victim" where evidence of appellant's guilt was substantial and where there was no reasonable possibility that the jury's verdict would have been more favorable to appellant in the absence of that isolated statement. The court further held that appellant was not denied his constitutional right to a fair trial before an impartial jury where the district court concluded that he did not satisfy the first part of the McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood test. The court finally held that appellant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel where appellant failed to establish that counsel's performance was legally deficient in any of the identified areas and where appellant made no showing of actual prejudice. Accordingly, the court found no reversible error and affirmed the district court's denial of a new trial and affirmed appellant's conviction and sentence.

Defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress after he was charged with two counts of sexual exploitation of children. At issue was whether the misstatement of fact in the affidavit for a search warrant be stricken as knowingly and intentionally made or in reckless disregard for the truth. Also at issue was whether defendant's right to confrontation and due process was violated based on a failure to disclose exculpatory evidence and, if stricken, whether probable cause for the search of the computer IP address or residence existed within the four corners of the affidavit. The court affirmed the denial of defendant's motion to suppress and held that defendant did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the deputy's misstatements were deliberately false or made with reckless disregard for the truth and that the affidavits, even without the proper date and time, provided probable cause to issue the search warrants. Furthermore, because defendant's conditional plea did not preserve any Brady v. Maryland issue, the court declined to consider the issue on appeal.

Appellant appealed his sentence contending that it was "illegal" when he was convicted of aggravated assault and battery where the sentence was conditionally stayed pending his admission to an alcohol treatment center ("WYSTAR"). At issue was whether appellant's sentence was illegal merely because the district court stayed its issuance of the mittimus, in order to conditionally release him for alcohol abuse treatment, and later issued the mittimus without a further hearing. The court held that the sentence imposed by the district court was unusual, and perhaps ill-advised. However, the court also held that it did not find in the record on appeal circumstances that rendered it an "illegal" sentence. Accordingly, the order of the district court denying appellant's motion was remanded for the purpose of amending the disputed sentence so as to credit him for all time served in connection with his detention at WYSTAR.

Appellant Ronald Harvey challenged an order from the district court affirming the suspension of his driver's license under state law, arguing the arresting officer lacked probable cause to justify a traffic stop. In June, 2009, Appellant was pulled over driving a forklift on the shoulder of the road. The officer cited Appellant for failing to display a "slow moving vehicle" emblem on the lift in violation of state law. While writing the ticket, the officer smelled the strong odor of alcohol coming from Appellant. The officer administered a breath test. Based on the results, the state Department of Transportation sent Appellant notice of its intent to suspend his driver's license. Appellant requested a hearing before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), challenging the traffic stop and the field sobriety test. The OAH upheld the suspension; Appellant appealed to the district court. The district court affirmed the OAH decision. On review of the lower court and agency decisions, the Supreme Court cited the state law Appellant argued did not exist, and affirmed the district court's decision suspending Appellant's driver's license.