Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of possession of marijuana, holding that the traffic stop in this case was unreasonable under the totality of the circumstances.Defendant was the passenger in a vehicle that was stopped for following a semi-truck too closely. The officer requested a drug-detection canine to be dispatched to the location and subsequently found approximately forty-two pounds of marijuana. Defendant was subsequently charged with two drug-related counts. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the initial traffic stop was unreasonable. The district court denied the motion to suppress, and Defendant entered a guilty plea to count two. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the traffic violation for following too closely was not objectively justified and was unreasonable at its inception; and (2) therefore, the district court erred by denying Defendant's motion to suppress. View "Levenson v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of possession of marijuana, aggravated fleeing or attempting to elude, reckless endangering, and interference with a peace officer, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress.Defendant pleaded guilty to the offenses, conditioned on his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress the fruits of a traffic stop on the ground that the stop violated the Fourth Amendment. On appeal, the parties disputed whether Defendant waived his constitutional claim by filing an untimely motion to suppress. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant did not waive his Fourth Amendment claim; and (2) the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress. View "Barney v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of three counts of delivery of a controlled substance, holding that the exclusion of "distilled spirits, wine, malt beverages, or tobacco" from the Wyoming Controlled Substances Act, Wyo. Stat. Ann. 35-7-1031(a)(ii), did not violate Defendant's constitutional equal protection rights.In his motion to dismiss, Defendant argued that the Act violated his rights to equal protection and substantive due process under the United States and Wyoming Constitutions by operating in an unequal and disparate manner because the Act excludes from its application tobacco and alcohol. The district court denied the motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the regulation of substances contained in the Act was reasonably related to the State's legitimate interests and did not violate Defendant's constitutional right to equal protection. View "Hardison v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of possession of methamphetamine, possession of marijuana, and interference with a peace officer, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant's conviction for marijuana possession.During trial, the prosecution presented testimony that the green leafy substance found in Defendant's left from pocket was consistent with marijuana, but there was no testimony on the concentration of the substance's THC concentration. On appeal, Defendant argued that, in the absence of proof of the THC concentration, there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for possession of marijuana. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) under Wyo. Stat. Ann. 35-7-1050(a), Defendant bore the burden of establishing that the substance he possessed had a THC concentration of not more than 0.3 percent; and (2) Defendant failed to meet his burden of proof and made no argument that the evidence was otherwise insufficient to support his conviction. View "Roman v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of felony child endangerment, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.After a bench trial, the district court found Defendant guilty of felony child endangerment. At the close of the State's evidence, Defendant moved for judgment of acquittal, alleging that the State had failed to provide sufficient evidence of the elements necessary to convict her. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the State presented sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for child endangerment, and therefore, the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal. View "Reyes v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Appellant's motion for sentence reduction pursuant to Wyo. R. Crim. P. 35(b), holding that the district court properly found that it lacked jurisdiction over Appellant's motion.Appellant entered a guilty plea to tattooing a minor, delivery of methamphetamine to a juvenile, and child endangerment. The district court later revoked Appellant's probation and reinstated his original sentence. At issue was Appellant's motion for a sentence reduction that was filed more than one year after Appellant's probation revocation sentence. The district court denied the motion as untimely. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant's request for a reduction of sentence was untimely, and therefore, the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Appellant's motion for a sentence reduction. View "Sherard v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the juvenile court denying RH's petition for expungement of his record pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. 14-6-241, holding that the district court erred in interpreting sections 14-6-241(d) and (e).When RH was sixteen years old the State filed a delinquency petition against him. RH agreed to a deferred prosecution and successfully completed the terms of his deferral. Thereafter, the juvenile court dismissed the delinquency petition. RH later petitioned for expungement of his record. The juvenile court denied the petition, concluding that RH was statutorily ineligible to have the record expunged because the petition charged him with a violent felony. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that section 14-6-241 allows expungement of a juvenile record where a delinquency petition was dismissed but the delinquent act charged was a violent felony. View "RH v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's request for a hearing to show cause and denying his application to remove an interlock device in his car, holding that the district court erred and abused its discretion by denying Defendant's request for a hearing.After he received his tenth driving under the influence (DUI) conviction Defendant was required to operate only vehicles equipped with an ignition interlock device. After eight years of sobriety, Defendant applied to the district court to have the interlock removed pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. 31-5-233(f)(v) and requested a hearing to show cause. The district court denied both requests without explanation. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) section 31-5-233(f)(v) requires a court to hold a hearing to allow a defendant to show good cause after he has made a prima facie showing for relief; and (2) the district court was not required to make findings of fact and explain its reasoning. View "Schneider v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court compelling Defendant to pay $63,428 in restitution to the victim of his offense, Rafael Magana, holding that the district court did not err or abuse its discretion.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court had the authority to award restitution to Magana; (2) there was sufficient evidence supporting the district court's award of restitution to Magana; and (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to consider Magana's comparative fault in determining the amount of restitution. View "Cave v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial of Defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion.After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of attempted first-degree murder and was sentenced to prison for the remainder of his natural life. Defendant later filed his motion to correct an illegal sentence under Wyo. R. Crim. P. 35(a). The district court denied the motion without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's arguments concerning the validity of his conviction were not reviewable in this Rule 35(a) motion; and (2) Defendant's arguments concerning the legality of his conviction and sentence were barred by res judicata. View "Best v. State" on Justia Law