Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A state trooper stopped William Tiernan on suspicion of driving while impaired after he observed Tiernan's vehicle cross the center line and fog line a couple of times. The trooper conducted field sobriety tests and arrested Tiernan for driving under the influence of alcohol. Tiernan refused to submit to chemical testing. The Department of Transportation (DOT) subsequently suspended Tiernan's driver's license. The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) upheld the suspension. The district court affirmed. Tiernan appealed, contending that the trooper failed to present sufficient facts to support the stop for a lane violation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that substantial evidence supported the agency's decision. View "Tiernan v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant Randal Craft entered a conditional guilty plea to felony possession of a controlled substance and reserved the right to appeal whether he entered a valid waiver of counsel in a prior conviction that was used to enhance the present charge to a felony. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in finding Appellant's waiver of counsel in the proceeding at issue was knowing and intelligent where the advisements given in the proceeding complied with the requirements of Wyo. R. Crim. P. 11, and there was no indication in the record that Appellent did not understand those advisements, including the advisement that he had a right to an attorney. View "Craft v. State" on Justia Law

In 1999, James Graham was convicted on four counts of obtaining property by false pretenses. Graham's appeal challenged the amount of restitution ordered as part of his sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part. In 2010, Graham filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence. The district court ruled that Graham's sentence was not illegal and denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Graham's appeal was barred under the doctrine of res judicata because he could have raised the majority of his issues in his initial appeal and did not suggest any good cause for failing to do so; (2) because res judicata barred his claims that the underlying sentence was illegal, there was no foundation for his challenge to the subsequent revocation of his probation; and (3) the Court was not compelled to consider Graham's claims in the interests of justice, largely because his claims were without merit. View "Graham v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant Christopher Harrell was convicted of rape, kidnapping, and assault. Appellant appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion when it did not allow him to introduce evidence that he had been acquitted of a previous battery charge and that his Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process was violated because he was deprived of testimony that was vital, material, and relevant to his defense. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant's arguments were not persuasive and that Appellant did not demonstrate that he suffered prejudice from the district court's refusal to allow him to introduce testimony about his previous acquittal for battery. View "Harrell v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner Bobby Jenkins was charged with misdemeanor animal cruelty after a horse he owned was discovered in dire physical condition. A jury convicted him of the charges. The district court affirmed. Petitioner petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of review, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Petitioner failed to show that he was materially prejudiced by trial counsel's failure to (1) object to testimony and argument regarding the arrest and incarceration of both Petitioner and his brother, (2) object to the prosecutor's improper questioning of a witness about the credibility of another witness, or (3) object to the prosecutor's question relating to allegedly irrelevant testimony about the condition of other horses and Petitioner's speeding ticket. View "Jenkins v. State" on Justia Law

After a bench trial, the district court held Appellant Martin Hultgren in criminal contempt due to his failure to comply with the terms of a dispositional order entered in a juvenile case. Despite the fact that the charge had been amended to allege only three violations, in its written judgment and sentence for criminal contempt of court the district court indicated that it held Hultgren in contempt on six grounds. Hultgren filed an appeal. Subsequently, the district court entered a judgment and sentence nunc pro tunc order amending its earlier criminal contempt order to reflect that it found that Hultgren violated the juvenile court order in three ways, not six. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, given the entry of the nunc pro tunc order, the basis for Hultgren's issue on appeal had disappeared. View "Hultgren v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant Thomas Stastny was convicted of sexual abuse of a minor and attempted sexual abuse of a minor. On appeal, Appellant challenged the district court's admission of evidence of a prior conviction, accused the prosecutor of committing misconduct during closing argument, and alleged that these cumulative errors required reversal of his convictions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the doctrine of invited error barred Appellant from raising in his appeal issues concerning the admission of evidence of his prior conviction, (2) plain error did not occur as a result of prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument, and (3) as there was no error, the doctrine of cumulative error did not require reversal of Appellant's convictions. View "Stastny v. State" on Justia Law

Craig Winstead pled guilty to three counts of third degree sexual assault, and the district court sentenced him to ten to fifteen years on each count with the sentence on the first count to be served first and the sentences on the second and third counts to be served consecutively to the first sentence and concurrently with each other. Winstead filed a motion to correct on illegal sentence, claiming his sentences should have merged and asking the court to order that he serve his sentences concurrently. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Winstead's claim was barred by the doctrine of res judicata because Winstead could have raised the issue during the sentencing hearing, on direct appeal, or when he filed a motion for judgment and sentence nunc pro tunc and failed to do so. View "Winstead v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant Dana Dickey entered a conditional plea to one count of possession of a controlled substance. Dickey reserved the right to appeal the district court's denial of her motion to suppress the methamphetamine found in her purse following a traffic stop, claiming the evidence should have been suppressed as the fruit of a constitutionally infirm detention under the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err by denying Dickey's motion to suppress where (1) the detention lasted no longer than necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop, (2) the use of a drug dog during Dickey's lawful detention did not violate any constitutionally protected right, and (3) law enforcement officers had probable cause to search the vehicle. View "Dickey v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant Marshall Washington, while working as a confidential informant for the Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI), was charged with and found guilty of possession of a controlled substance. The district court's judgment and sentence incorrectly stated that Appellant pled guilty to the offenses, and the parties entered a stipulated motion to modify the judgment and sentence to correct the inaccuracy. Washington appealed, arguing that (1) the district court improperly denied discovery of the confidential informant agreement (CI agreement) between him and the DCI as well as the DCI's policy manual; and (2) the matter should be reversed inasmuch as the modified judgment and sentence did not fully comply with Wyo. R. Crim. P. 32. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that no reversible error was committed by the trial court because (1) Appellant had access to the CI agreement prior to trial and referred to the document at trial, and denial of Appellant's motion to compel discovery of DCI's policy manual was not an abuse of discretion; and (2) the omissions in the modified judgment and sentence were simply clerical errors that would be corrected on remand to the district court. Remanded. View "Washington v. State" on Justia Law