Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 1993, Appellant pled guilty to a second degree sexual assault crime in New Jersey. Appellant later moved to Wyoming. In 2012, the State charged Appellant with failing to register in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. 7-19-302(j) and 7-19-307(a)(d). After a trial, Appellant was convicted of the charge. Appellant appealed, contending that Wyoming’s Sex Offender Registration Act violates the prohibitions against ex post facto laws contained in the state and federal Constitutions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Act does not violate the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution because the Act imposes only a regulatory burden on convicted sex offenders; and (2) there was no merit in Appellant’s claim that the Wyoming Constitution provides greater protection against ex post facto laws than its federal counterpart.View "Kammerer v. State" on Justia Law

In 2005, Defendant was arrested and charged with two counts of third-degree sexual assault. In a separate docket, Defendant was charged with two counts of forgery. Defendant pled guilty to the forgery counts and no contest to the sexual assault charges. In 2007, the district court sentenced Defendant and credited him for time served awaiting sentencing. Defendant was released from prison in 2011 but was arrested for probation violation in 2012 in Arkansas. After Defendant was transferred to Wyoming, the district court revoked his probation and imposed the second sexual assault sentence. The court also credited Defendant with time served while awaiting his hearing. Defendant later filed a pro se motion to correct illegal sentence, claiming that he was entitled to a total of 426 days credit for time served. The district court granted the motion in part, awarding him a total of 379 days credit for time served. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly credited Defendant an additional 169 days for time served.View "Tallerdy v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of driving with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of at least 0.08% for a fourth or subsequent time in ten years, a felony. On appeal, Appellant argued that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress the results of his BAC test, claiming that the affidavit supporting the search warrant authorizing his blood to be taken for testing was deficient because it failed to demonstrate probable cause. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the search warrant affidavit did not provide sufficient information for a judicial officer to make an independent judgment that there was probable cause to issue the warrant, and therefore, the BAC test - the fruit of the search - should have been suppressed. View "Snell v. State" on Justia Law

In 2012, Defendant entered a conditional plea of guilty to third degree sexual assault in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. 6-2-304(a)(i), which was repealed in 2007. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in concluding that the State could prosecute him under section 6-2-304(a)(i) because the statute had been repealed for four years before he was charged and because the repealing legislation did not include a saving clause that kept section 6-2-304(a)(i) viable with respect to crimes committed before its repeal. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to dismiss and affirmed the judgment and sentence, holding that Wyoming’s general saving statute permitted the State to prosecute Defendant for third degree sexual assault under section 6-2-304(a)(i) for conduct which preceded its repeal by more than four years.View "Roush v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was placed on supervised probation. The district court also placed Appellant in an intensive supervision program (ISP). Appellant committed eleven violations of the rules while in the ISP, for which the ISP program gave Appellant an administrative sanction by placing him in a residential community corrections program. Due to Appellant’s violations of the rules while in the ISP, the State filed a petition for probation revocation. The district court revoked Appellant’s probation and imposed the underlying sentence. On appeal, Appellant argued that the ISP violations could not form the basis for a probation revocation because they had previously been subject to administrative sanctions. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Appellant’s probation was revoked based on violations for which he had previously been punished with administration sanctions, in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. 7-13-1107. Remanded. View "Butler v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to first-degree murder, aggravated burglary, and conspiracy to commit aggravated burglary. Defendant was sixteen years old when he committed the crimes. After imposing an initial sentence, the district court resentenced Defendant to life in prison with the possibility of parole after serving for twenty-five years on the felony murder charge, to run consecutive to the previously imposed sentence for aggravated burglary of twenty to twenty-five years, and concurrent to the sentence for conspiracy to commit aggravated burglary. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded to the district court with instructions to resentence on all counts, holding that sentencing courts are required to provide an individualized sentencing hearing to weigh the factors for determining a juvenile’s diminished culpability and greater prospects for reform when, as in this case, the aggregate sentences result the functional equivalent of life without parole. Remanded for resentencing. View "Bear Cloud v. State" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pled no contest to one count of interference with a police officer. The State stood by its original plea agreement at the sentencing hearing and recommended a three to five year sentence which would be suspended and Defendant would be placed on probation. The district court did not follow this recommendation and instead sentenced Defendant to incarceration of three to six years. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in sentencing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Defendant after considering Defendant’s criminal history and the safety of the community. View "Croy v. State" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a complaint against four defendants alleging that they conspired to fabricate a mental incompetency determination in connection with criminal proceedings filed against Plaintiff in Utah. The district court dismissed Plaintiff’s case for failing to properly serve the defendants within ninety days of filing the complaint. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) questions existed whether the affidavits of service on three of the defendants established a prima case of valid service, and the fourth defendant waived any objection to lack of proper service; (2) the district court did not err in failing to enter a default against the defendants; and (3) the district judge did not err in not granting Plaintiff’s motion to transfer the case to another district court. Remanded for a hearing to determine the validity of service of process. View "Lundahl v. Gregg" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of one count of felony child abuse. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not violate Defendant’s right to confrontation by allegedly limiting the cross-examination of the victim regarding inappropriate sexual contact between the victim and his sister because the district court did not make a ruling on the issue; and (2) did not abuse its discretion by not granting Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal because there was sufficient evidence such that a jury could return a guilty verdict.View "Swan v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of aggravated assault by threatening to use a drawn deadly weapon. On appeal, Appellant argued, among other things, that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance for failing to call an expert witness. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict; (2) Appellant did not receive constitutionally effective counsel, and, under the circumstances, a reasonable probability existed that, but for trial counsel’s deficient performance, the outcome would have been different; and (3) the jury was improperly instructed on self defense.View "Cooper v. State" on Justia Law