Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 1979, the appellant and his brother took a truck in Laramie, Wyoming, and drove it to Casper. The appellant pled guilty to felony Unauthorized Use of Automobile. The district court sentenced him, suspended the sentence, and placed him on probation. It further ordered that upon successful completion of one year of probation, he could withdraw his guilty plea and have the matter dismissed. After completing probation, the appellant was discharged, his guilty plea was withdrawn, and the case was dismissed. Despite this, the Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation maintained records incorrectly indicating he was a convicted felon.In 2025, the appellant petitioned the District Court of Albany County to expunge his records under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-13-1502, which provides for expungement of felony convictions. The State did not oppose the petition. The district court denied the request, reasoning that the appellant’s case was resolved through a deferred prosecution process—specifically, the withdrawal of the guilty plea and dismissal after probation—under statutes governing deferred dispositions. It concluded that, as there was no felony conviction, there was no conviction to expunge. The appellant’s motion to reconsider was also denied, and he appealed.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case and applied a de novo standard to statutory interpretation. It held that Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-13-1502 unambiguously limits expungement eligibility to persons convicted of felonies. The court determined that a deferred prosecution resulting in annulment or withdrawal of a guilty plea and dismissal does not constitute a conviction. Therefore, the appellant is not eligible for expungement under this statute. The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the district court’s denial of the expungement petition. View "Lynch v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

The defendant was charged with two counts of witness intimidation under Wyoming law, based on statements made during a supervised visit with his two daughters and a subsequent Facebook post. The daughters, aged 14 and 11, were residing at a youth home and scheduled to testify at an upcoming Child in Need of Supervision (CHINS) hearing. During the visit, the defendant made comments such as threatening to take away a tablet if one daughter refused to visit, and asked how the girls would feel if he took their kids away. He also referenced his right to bear arms and posted a Facebook rant containing generically threatening statements. Witnesses at the youth home perceived some of the remarks as threatening, but the daughters themselves did not clearly connect the comments to their upcoming court appearance.The District Court of Uinta County presided over the criminal trial. The jury convicted the defendant on both counts of witness intimidation under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-5-305(a), and the judge sentenced him to concurrent prison terms of four to eight years. The defendant appealed, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions and that his statements did not constitute actionable threats intended to influence or intimidate the witnesses in relation to their duty to testify.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case. Applying the standard that witness intimidation under the statute is a specific intent crime, the court determined that the evidence did not establish that the defendant’s statements were intended to influence, intimidate, or impede his daughters in their roles as witnesses. The court found no nexus between the alleged threats and the daughters’ participation in the CHINS hearing. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Wyoming held that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the convictions and reversed both counts. View "Brown v. State" on Justia Law

Law enforcement officers in Albany County, Wyoming, arrested an individual who had an outstanding warrant and was found in possession of controlled substances. During the arrest, officers located his truck, had a K9 unit alert to it, and towed it to an evidence bay. After obtaining a warrant, they searched the truck and seized substances later determined not to be illegal drugs. The truck was then released by law enforcement to a towing company, where it was placed in storage pending payment of fees. The owner was not notified of this arrangement until several months later. By the time he learned of the truck’s location, storage fees had accumulated to an amount he could not pay, and the truck was eventually sold at auction. The owner asserted he never received notice that the truck could be sold to cover the fees.The District Court of Albany County heard the owner’s pro se motion for return of the truck or, alternatively, for compensation equal to its value. The State responded that it no longer had possession of the vehicle, as it had been released to the towing company and not seized for forfeiture. After a hearing, the district court denied the motion, concluding it lacked authority to order return of property it no longer possessed or to award money damages under Wyoming Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g).The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case and held that a court has no jurisdiction under Rule 41(g) to order the return of property or award damages when the government no longer possesses the property. The court reaffirmed that sovereign immunity bars monetary relief under this rule and that any claim for damages must proceed as a separate civil action under the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act. The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion. View "Bressette v. State" on Justia Law

Blake Brewer was arrested after stealing a sound system and monitor from a Walmart in Gillette, Wyoming, resulting in a loss of $1,887. At the time, Brewer was on parole for a prior fraud-by-check conviction. He entered a plea agreement, pleading guilty to felony theft in exchange for a recommended sentence of 18 to 36 months and agreed to pay restitution. The plea agreement did not specify whether the new sentence would run concurrently or consecutively to any sentence that might be reinstated following a pending parole revocation for his earlier conviction.The District Court of Campbell County accepted Brewer’s guilty plea and imposed the recommended sentence. During the oral pronouncement, the court was silent regarding whether the sentence would run concurrently or consecutively to any reinstated sentence for the prior offense. In its written judgment, however, the court ordered Brewer’s sentence to run consecutive to any other sentence. After a motion from the State, the court issued an order nunc pro tunc to correct the sentence’s duration but retained the consecutive language. Brewer appealed, arguing that the written judgment imposed an illegal sentence because the oral pronouncement did not specify consecutive sentencing and the written order referenced a sentence not yet reinstated by the parole board.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case de novo, applying its precedent from Keefe v. State, 2024 WY 93, 555 P.3d 492 (Wyo. 2024). The court held that when a sentencing court is silent on whether a sentence runs concurrently or consecutively, Wyoming law presumes the sentences run consecutively. The written judgment merely confirmed this presumption. The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that Brewer’s sentence was not illegal. View "Brewer v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

A police officer in Casper, Wyoming, observed a pickup truck driven by Mark Davis traveling slowly and approaching a stop sign. The officer noticed Davis activated his right turn signal only shortly before stopping at the intersection, estimating the signal was turned on no more than twenty feet before the turn, rather than the statutorily required 100 feet. After stopping Davis, the officer discovered an open beer can and learned Davis’s license was suspended. A subsequent search of the vehicle revealed methamphetamine, marijuana, and drug paraphernalia. Davis was charged with felony possession of methamphetamine and felony possession with intent to deliver.Davis filed a motion to suppress the evidence, arguing the officer lacked reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop because he had activated his turn signal more than 100 feet before the turn. At the suppression hearing in the District Court of Natrona County, the officer testified about his training in estimating distances, and Davis’s expert witness presented calculations based on the dash cam video, but conceded uncertainty about Davis’s speed. The district court reviewed the video and testimony, ultimately finding the officer’s estimate credible and concluding the State met its burden to show reasonable suspicion for the stop. The court denied the motion to suppress, and Davis entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the district court’s denial of the suppression motion, deferring to its factual findings unless clearly erroneous and reviewing constitutional questions de novo. The Supreme Court held that, under the totality of the circumstances, the officer had reasonable suspicion to believe Davis violated the turn signal statute, justifying the stop. The district court’s findings were supported by the record, and the evidence obtained was admissible. The judgment was affirmed. View "Davis v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

Police and medical personnel responded to a motel room in Casper, Wyoming, where they found Chance Arias deceased with injuries consistent with assault and strangulation. Surveillance footage showed James Mavigliano and Amber Cook entering and leaving the room multiple times. Mavigliano was later found nearby with a blue duffle bag containing a broken, bloody lamp, and he possessed the room key and drug paraphernalia. After being advised of his rights, Mavigliano admitted to killing Arias, describing a physical altercation that escalated to him striking Arias with a lamp and strangling him with the lamp’s cord. He acknowledged that Arias did not physically threaten or attack him.The State charged Mavigliano with second-degree murder and possession of a controlled substance. The case was tried before the District Court of Natrona County. At trial, the defense argued self-defense, and the jury was instructed that the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mavigliano did not act in self-defense. The jury was also instructed on the requirement of unanimity for its verdict. The verdict form did not include a special interrogatory regarding self-defense, and defense counsel did not request one or object to the form. The jury found Mavigliano guilty of both charges, and he was sentenced accordingly.On appeal, Mavigliano challenged only his second-degree murder conviction, arguing that the district court committed plain error by not including a self-defense interrogatory on the verdict form. The Supreme Court of Wyoming held that there is no clear and unequivocal rule of law requiring a special self-defense interrogatory or unanimity instruction beyond the standard instructions given. The court found no plain error and affirmed the conviction. View "Mavigliano v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

James D. Van Winter moved in with his sister in Wyoming due to financial difficulties. After a family gathering, a dispute arose when Van Winter felt slighted by a guest, leading to a heated argument with his sister. The situation escalated when Van Winter refused to leave, resulting in a physical altercation with his brother-in-law. During the struggle, Van Winter threatened his brother-in-law with a pocketknife, which was later wrestled away, causing a minor injury. Police responded, collected statements and evidence, and Van Winter was arrested. He denied any altercation occurred.The State charged Van Winter with aggravated assault and battery and possession of a deadly weapon with unlawful intent. The District Court of Big Horn County presided over the jury trial, which resulted in convictions on both counts. At sentencing, the court orally imposed an 18–24 month prison term for Count I and a suspended 2–4 year sentence with probation for Count II. However, the written judgment imposed a suspended 3–5 year sentence and specified a three-year probation term. Van Winter appealed, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to present fingerprint evidence and challenging the discrepancy between the oral and written sentences.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case. It held that Van Winter failed to demonstrate prejudice from his counsel’s performance, as the fingerprint evidence would not have changed the trial’s outcome given the consistent witness testimony. Therefore, the district court’s denial of the motion for a new trial was affirmed. However, the Supreme Court found a material conflict between the oral and written sentences for Count II. It vacated the probationary term and remanded the case for the district court to conform the written judgment to the oral pronouncement and to determine the appropriate length of probation. View "Van Winter v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

Joel Lee Wilson was charged with aggravated burglary, robbery, breach of peace, property destruction, and unlawful possession of a controlled substance after forcibly entering the Wolf family’s home in Casper, Wyoming. The home was occupied by Alexander Wolf, a sheriff’s deputy, his wife, and their daughter. Wilson and another man, Daniel Hemmer, knocked and scratched at the door before Wilson broke it open. Upon entry, Wilson confronted the residents and engaged in a violent altercation with Mr. Wolf, while Hemmer interacted with the daughter. The incident ended with both men fleeing after Ms. Wolf intervened with a firearm. Evidence included Facebook messages between Wilson and Hemmer discussing an opportunity to make money and plans for the night, as well as Wilson’s statements to police about collecting a debt.The case was tried before the District Court of Natrona County. At trial, Wilson argued he lacked intent to commit theft, a required element for aggravated burglary and robbery, emphasizing that no property was taken and challenging the admission of the Facebook messages as co-conspirator statements. The district court denied Wilson’s motion for judgment of acquittal, finding sufficient evidence of intent based on the messages, the forceful entry, and the circumstances of the break-in. The jury convicted Wilson on all counts, and he was sentenced to concurrent prison terms.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed whether sufficient evidence supported the jury’s finding of intent to commit theft. Applying the standard of review that favors the State’s evidence and reasonable inferences, the court held that both direct and circumstantial evidence—including the Facebook messages, Wilson’s conduct, and the coordinated entry—supported the jury’s verdict. The court affirmed the convictions, concluding the evidence was sufficient to establish Wilson’s intent to commit theft. View "Wilson v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

In this case, law enforcement officers responded to a domestic disturbance at a residence where they found the defendant holding his pregnant fiancée by the wrists. The officers directed him to remain seated on the kitchen floor during their investigation, which lasted about forty minutes. During this time, the defendant was told he was not under arrest but was not free to leave. He eventually admitted to restraining his fiancée by the chin and neck and taking her to the ground. He was later arrested and charged with several offenses, including aggravated assault and battery.After a preliminary hearing in the Circuit Court, the case was bound over to the District Court of Albany County. The defendant moved to suppress statements made before his formal arrest, arguing they were obtained during a custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings. The State opposed, contending he was not in custody until his formal arrest. The District Court held a hearing, denied the motion to suppress, and accepted the defendant’s conditional guilty plea to aggravated assault, reserving his right to appeal the suppression ruling.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed whether the conditional guilty plea was valid under Rule 11(a)(2) of the Wyoming Rules of Criminal Procedure. The Court found that, although the plea was in writing, and both the State and the District Court approved it, the issue reserved for appeal—suppression of the defendant’s statements—was not dispositive. Independent evidence existed that could support conviction even if the statements were suppressed. Because the reserved issue was not dispositive, the conditional plea was invalid.The Supreme Court of Wyoming vacated the judgment of conviction and reversed and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. The main holding is that a conditional guilty plea is invalid if the issue reserved for appeal is not dispositive of the entire case. View "Kotrc v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

A five-year-old child died after being left in the care of the defendant, who was the only adult present at the time. The defendant called 911, reporting the child had fallen down the stairs and was unresponsive. Emergency responders observed significant bruising and signs of oxygen deprivation. The child was transported to a hospital and died the next day. Law enforcement, suspecting abuse, interviewed the defendant at the police station. The defendant was advised of her Miranda rights, acknowledged understanding them, and agreed to speak with officers. Over several hours, during which she was allowed breaks and was not under arrest, the defendant ultimately confessed to beating the child and admitted fabricating the story about a fall.The State charged the defendant with first-degree murder and child abuse. The defendant moved to suppress her confession, arguing it was involuntary due to custodial circumstances, her use of prescription medication, and an invalid Miranda waiver. The District Court of Lincoln County held a suppression hearing without the defendant present, as she was hospitalized, and her counsel consented to proceeding in her absence. The court found the confession voluntary, denied the suppression motion, and admitted the confession at trial. The jury convicted the defendant on both charges.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Wyoming reviewed whether the district court erred in finding the confession voluntary and in conducting the suppression hearing without the defendant present. The Supreme Court held that, under the totality of the circumstances, the confession was voluntary and not the result of coercion or impairment. The court also found that any error in holding the suppression hearing without the defendant was harmless, as there was no reasonable probability her presence would have changed the outcome. The convictions and rulings of the district court were affirmed. View "Marler v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law