Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of Appellant’s motion filed under Wyo. R. App. P. 21 to withdraw his no contest pleas based on ineffective assistance of counsel, holding that the advice from Defendant’s fourth trial counsel as to whether Defendant could challenge his convictions after pleas of no contest did not render Defendant’s pleas involuntary.Defendant plead no contest to one count of possession with intent to deliver marijuana and one count of felony possession of marijuana. In his Rule 21 motion, Defendant claimed that his counsel incorrectly advised him he could pursue claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and violation of his right to a speedy trial in an appeal if he entered a no contest plea, rendering his plea involuntary. The district court denied the motion, finding that Defendant did not meet his burden of showing that, but for his counsel’s erroneous advice, Defendant would have insisted on going to trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in determining that Defendant failed to establish he was prejudiced by the erroneous advice of his trial counsel. View "Miller v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction of two counts of strangulation of a household member, holding that the prosecutor did not commit misconduct during closing argument.On appeal, Defendant argued (1) the prosecutor’s repeated use of the “golden rule” argument subverted the objectivity of the jury and materially prejudiced him, and (2) the prosecutor’s repeated reference to the complaining witness as the “victim,” referring to the defense theory as “victim blaming,” and referring to what the defendant did not say to police resulted in cumulative error, materially prejudicing him. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the prosecutor did not make improper golden rule arguments during her closing argument and did not otherwise commit misconduct. Therefore, there was no cumulative error. View "Buszkiewic v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction of delivery of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, holding that Defendant was not denied his right to a fair trial due to prosecutorial misconduct.On appeal, Defendant argued that his right to a fair trial was violated and he was materially prejudiced because the prosecutor committed impermissible misconduct during closing argument by misquoting certain testimony and by attributing a statement to a witness that had not been introduced at trial. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that there was no reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different absent the prosecutor’s statements challenged on appeal. View "Osterling v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction for aggravated assault and other misdemeanor offenses, holding that the district court did not err in instructing the jury and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.Defendant’s convictions stemmed from an incident in which he led law enforcement on a high-speed chase, crossed the median of I-25, and drove against oncoming traffic. The Supreme Court affirmed and conviction but remanded for entry of judgment corrected to properly reflect the offense on which Defendant was convicted, holding that the district court (1) deviated from the jury verdict both in its oral ruling on sentencing and in its written judgment and sentence; (2) did not err in instructing the jury regarding the crime of attempted battery; and (3) did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for a judgment of acquittal because the jury’s verdict finding Defendant guilty of aggravated assault and battery was supported by sufficient evidence. View "Kite v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision denying Defendant’s motion for sentence reduction, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion.Defendant pled guilty to five felonies involving child sexual abuse. The district court accepted Defendant’s plea and the sentence to which the parties agreed. The court then entered its judgment and sentenced Defendant to an aggregate term of forty-five to fifty years in prison. Defendant later filed a pro se motion for sentence reduction, citing his good behavior in prison and attaching a letter from his mother and a certificate of completion of a victim impact course. The district court denied the motion, determining that Defendant failed make a showing that justified or required a modification or reduction of his sentences. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that none of the grounds Defendant raised on appeal provided a basis for reversal of the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion for sentence reduction. View "Hall v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to correct an illegal sentence, in which Defendant claimed that he had not received adequate credit for time spent in confinement, holding that there was an eleven-day shortfall in the total presentencing confinement credit due Defendant.Specifically, the Court held (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant credit for the nonresidential portion of his participation in a Volunteers of America program; but (2) the district court erred in failing to grant Defendant a total of 933 days of presentencing confinement credit. View "Hutton v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed all of Defendant’s convictions except for his conviction for obtaining property by false pretenses, which the Court reversed, holding that the evidence was insufficient to support Defendant’s conviction for obtaining property by false pretenses.The Court further held (1) sufficient evidence supported Defendant’s convictions for performing the duties of a sheriff prior to qualifying and for submitting false claims with intent to defraud; and (2) as regards Defendant’s convictions for acting as a public officer prior to qualifying, submitting false claims, and wrongfully taking or disposing of property, Defendant did not demonstrate any cumulative error that could have constituted prejudice or rendered his trial unfair. View "Haskell v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant’s conviction of driving under the influence of alcohol (fourth or subsequent offense within ten years), holding that the State presented sufficient evidence to support Appellant’s conviction.The State charged Appellant with driving under the influence, Appellant’s fourth offense within ten years, in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. 31-5-233(b)(i). A jury returned a guilt verdict on the charge of driving under the influence and made a supplemental finding that Appellant had three previous convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol within ten years. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the conviction. View "Hyatt v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction for fraudulently altering a government record, holding that a printed copy of an unsigned an unfixed bond form qualifies as a government record, as defined by Wyo. Stat. Ann. 6-3-604(b).On appeal, Defendant argued that he did not violate section 6-3-604 because the bond order he altered was not a government record as defined by statute. Defendant also claimed that the State did not provide sufficient evidence to show that he acted with the specific intent required by section 6-3-604. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) the bond order in this case was a government record; and (2) the State’s evidence was sufficient to show that Defendant had the requisite specific intent to act fraudulently - or to secure an advantage he was not entitled to - when he altered the document. View "Mathewson v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction for felony possession of anabolic steroids found in a search of his vehicle.On appeal, Defendant challenged the denial of his motion to suppress the drugs found in his vehicle, arguing (1) the peace officer lacked probable cause to stop Defendant; (2) the peach officer lacked subsequent reasonable suspicion to detain; (3) the canine drug sniff while inside Defendant’s vehicle constituted an illegal search and seizure; and (4) the peace officer did not have additional probable cause to search absent the illegal dog sniff. The Supreme Court held that (1) because Appellant failed to present the district court with his arguments about probable cause for the stop or reasonable suspicion to continue his attention, these claims will not be considered on appeal; and (2) the circumstances established probable cause to search Defendant’s vehicle, even before the dog indicated there were drugs in the trunk. View "Pier v. State" on Justia Law