Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Petitioner was arrested for driving while under the influence of alcohol. Petitioner initially refused to take a breath test until the arresting highway patrol trooper said that a search warrant would be obtained and that a blood sample could be forcibly obtained if Petitioner did not cooperate. Petitioner then submitted to the breath test, which he failed. The trooper then issued Petitioner a notice of license suspension. After a contested case hearing, the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) upheld the proposed suspension. The district court reversed, concluding that Petitioner was tricked into submitting to the breath test by the trooper’s statements. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the OAH correctly found that Petitioner was properly advised as required by statute and not tricked or misled. View "State ex rel. Wyo. Dep’t of Transp. v. Icenhower" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pleaded no contest to second degree sexual abuse. Defendant was previously convicted of a similar offense and specifically acknowledged in the plea agreement that the sentence for a second conviction of second degree sexual abuse of a minor was life in prison without the possibility of parole. The district court sentenced Defendant to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s sentence of life without the possibility of parole did not violate the Eighth Amendment because it was not grossly disproportionate to the crime; and (2) the sentence did not violate Wyo. Const. art. I, 14. View "Norgaard v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of felony stalking for stalking his estranged wife in violation of a protection order. The district court sentenced Defendant to a term of incarceration of nine to ten years. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding (1) the State presented sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant acted with the requisite intent to harass his victim; and (2) the district court did not commit reversible error when it instructed the jury concerning the elements of the crime of stalking. View "Dean v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was charged with four drug-related felonies. Appellant filed a motion and an amended motion to suppress the evidence police officers obtained against him in a search of Appellant’s apartment. The district court denied the motion, and Appellant entered a conditional guilty plea to felony possession of marijuana. Appellant appealed, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court (1) erred in concluding that the initial intrusion into Appellant’s apartment was lawful and justified by the emergency assistance exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement; and (2) correctly found that Appellant’s consent to the police’s later entry into and search of his apartment was voluntarily given. Remanded for a ruling on whether Appellant’s consent was tainted by the initial unlawful search of his apartment. View "Campbell v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of aggravated burglary and attempted kidnapping. The district court sentenced Appellant to twelve to fifteen years imprisonment on each conviction, the two sentences to run concurrently. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences on appeal. Appellant subsequently filed a motion to reduce his sentence. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed without addressing the merits of Appellant’s claims, as Appellant’s brief in many respects failed to comply with the requirements of Wyo. R. App. P. 7.01 and Appellant's arguments were either improperly raised on appeal or not cogent. View "Silva v. State" on Justia Law

In 2011, after a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated burglary and kidnapping and found to be a habitual criminal. The district court sentenced Defendant to two concurrent life sentences. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences. In 2013, Defendant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that one of the convictions the district court relied upon for the habitual criminal determination and the life sentences occurred when he was only sixteen years old and that consideration of that offense to impose a life sentence was unconstitutional under Miller v. Alabama. The district court denied Defendant’s motion to correct an illegal sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the sentencing scheme at issue here did not mandate a life sentence for a juvenile, and therefore, Miller did not apply. View "Counts v. State" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant pled guilty to two misdemeanor counts of sexual battery. The district court sentenced Appellant to the maximum penalty of two consecutive one-year terms of incarceration with a portion of his sentence suspended in favor of probation. The State later filed a petition to revoke Appellant’s probation for violating the conditions of his probation. Appellant elected to represent himself during the revocation proceedings. The district court found that Appellant had violated his probation and imposed the suspended jail sentence. Appellant appealed, asserting that the district court failed to properly advise him about the dangers of representing himself in the revocation proceedings, and therefore, his decision to forego counsel was not knowing and intelligent. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that although the advisements given by the district court did not satisfy Faretta v. California and its progeny, Appellant’s waiver of his right to counsel was knowing and intelligent. View "Reifer v. State" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant pleaded guilty to three counts of larceny. The plea agreement provided that Appellant would pay restitution in amounts to be determined by the district court. After a sentencing hearing, the district court ordered Appellant to pay specified amounts to several of the victims of his larceny offenses, including Range Drilling and Toni Coons. On appeal, Appellant argued that, with respect to Range Drilling, the evidence was insufficient to support any award, and with respect to Coons, the district court abused its discretion in the amount awarded. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the amount awarded to Coons; and (2) the district court did not err in awarding restitution to Range Drilling but erred in calculating the amount of the award. Remanded. View "Guinard v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant, an inmate, entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charge of escape. Appellant appealed that decision and subsequently filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence. The essence of Appellant’s arguments was that he should have been released from confinement on an earlier date, that any detention beyond that point was illegal, and because the crime of escape necessitates an escape from “legal” detention, his conviction was impossible and the sentence derived from it was illegal. The district court denied Appellant’s motion to correct an illegal sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding (1) regarding Appellant's appeal, Appellant failed to assert a valid basis for challenging his conviction after a plea of no contest; and (2) Appellant’s challenge to his conviction was not properly asserted in a motion to correct an illegal sentence. View "Hagen v. State" on Justia Law

After a bench trial, Defendant was found guilty of one count of aggravated assault and battery for threatening to use a drawn deadly weapon against his ex-girlfriend. Defendant appealed, arguing that the State presented insufficient evidence at trial to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he threatened to use the knife he was carrying. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that a rational trier of fact could find that, under the circumstances, Defendant’s actions were an actual threat towards his ex-girlfriend, and therefore, there was sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction. View "Levengood v. State" on Justia Law