Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Appellants' joint motion to suppress more than 300 pounds of marijuana law enforcement discovered during a traffic stop on Interstate 80 in Wyoming, holding that the district court did not err when it denied Appellants' motion to suppress evidence.Appellants - Cristian Ramirez and Hector Zapien-Galvan - were pulled over by state troopers for an expired registration. Appellants refused to consent to a search of the car, after which a certified canine alerted to packages containing 320.6 pounds of marijuana. Appellants moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the officer's conduct in pursuing their vehicle without reasonable suspicion negated the subsequent probable cause for the search. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly denied Appellants' motion to suppress because the underlying traffic stop was both objectively justified and reasonable at its inception and did not violate Wyo. Const. art. I, 4 or the Fourth Amendment. View "Zapien-Galvan v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to withdraw his pleas of no contest to voluntary manslaughter, attempted voluntary manslaughter, two counts of aggravated robbery, and four counts of interference with a peace officer, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Defendant's motion to withdraw his no contest pleas.Defendant pleaded no contest to the charges against him pursuant to a plea agreement with the State. Before he was sentenced, Defendant moved to withdraw his pleas, arguing that his right to a speedy trial was violated and that defense counsel did not provide effective assistance of counsel. The district court denied the motion and sentenced Defendant according to the plea agreement. That Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motion to withdraw his pleas. View "McHenry v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction, entered upon his conditional plea of guilty, of felony possession of methamphetamine, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from his vehicle after law enforcement stopped him for failing properly to signal a left turn.On appeal, Defendant challenged the district court's interpretation of the applicable statute, Wyo. Stat. Ann. 31-5-217, arguing that he complied with the statute and that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop him. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant's argument that this Court should interpret the statute to require no more than a turn be made safely ignored the rules of statutory interpretation. View "Anderson v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence for possession and delivery of methamphetamine, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to Wyo. R. Crim. P. 35(b).Defendant was charged with five felony offenses related to possession and delivery of a controlled substance and, pursuant to a plea agreement, pled guilty to one count of possession and one count of delivery of methamphetamine. The district court sentenced Defendant to five to seven years on the possession charge and a consecutive sentence of ten to fifteen years on the delivery charge. Defendant later filed her motion for sentence reduction, which the district court denied. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it did not elaborate on its reasons for denying Defendant's motion for sentence reduction and that there was no other error in the proceedings. View "Hurtado v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant, following a jury trial, of two counts of second-degree sexual abuse of a minor, holding that the prosecutor did not commit prosecutorial misconduct in the underlying proceedings.On appeal, Defendant argued that the prosecutor committed misconduct in the way he referred to and used the testimony of a forensic interviewer in his opening statement and closing argument. The Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed, holding (1) Defendant failed to establish that the prosecutor's statement violated a clear and unequivocal rule of law; and (2) there was no plain error in the State's closing argument. View "State v. Ward" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court answered a certified question by concluding that Wyo. Stat. Ann. 7-11-303 expressly grants circuit courts jurisdiction to address the competency of a person charged with a felony and suspend preliminary hearings before the person is bound over to the district court.Defendant was charged with two felonies. Before the preliminary hearing, defense counsel moved for a competency evaluation under section 7-11-303. The circuit court granted the motion and, after an evaluation, found Defendant fit to proceed. Thereafter, a preliminary hearing was held, and the matter was bound over to the district court. While the competency evaluation was pending the prosecutor filed an action seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the circuit court to hold a preliminary hearing. The circuit court certified the matter to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court answered that the plain language of section 7-11-303(a) confers jurisdiction to circuit courts to address the competency of a person charged with a felony before they are bound over to the district court. View "Skoric v. Park County Circuit Court" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgments of the district courts denying Appellants' separate motions to suppress, holding that the Wyoming Constitution does not require that an exterior canine sniff of a vehicle be supported by probable cause.Appellants in these cases were both subjected to an extended investigative detention, and both Appellants were arrested after a canine sniff of their vehicles. On appeal, Appellants argued that the canine sniffs had to be supported by probable cause under Wyo. Const. art. I, 4. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) the Wyoming Constitution does not require probable cause for an exterior canine sniff of a vehicle; and (2) Appellants were not entitled to relief on their remaining allegations of error. View "Tarzia v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction on one count each of stalking in violation of a protective order and criminal entry, holding that the prosecutor did not make improper comments in closing argument and that the district court did not plainly err in defining "spying distance."On appeal, Defendant argued that the prosecutor committed prosecutorial misconduct in closing by commenting on Defendant's silence and that the district court erred in allowing the State's witness to discuss "spying distance," a term not referenced in the stalking statute. The Supreme Court affirmed but remanded the case for correction of the date in the judgment and sentence, holding (1) Defendant failed to establish plain error as to his first two arguments on appeal; and (2) the district court did not plainly err when it allowed the State's witness to testify regarding his understanding of the definition of "spying distance." View "Hembree v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Appellant's motion for sentence reduction, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion.Appellant pled guilty to aggravated assault and battery and was sentenced to a period of incarceration for not less than four years nor more than eight years. Appellant later filed a motion for a sentence reduction requesting that the district court reduce his sentence to not less than three years nor more than six years based on his commendable conduct while incarcerated. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Defendant's motion for sentence reduction. View "Harper v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing Plaintiff's claims against Defendant, the mayor of Green River, as time-barred, barred under 42 U.S.C. 1983, and barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel, holding that the district court did not err.In his complaint, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant violated his oath of office during Plaintiff's underlying criminal matter by declining to order an investigation into a witness who recanted prior statements she made to law enforcement. The district court dismissed the complaint. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err when it determined that Plaintiff's claims were barred by the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act and 42 U.S.C. 1983; (2) Plaintiff failed to present cogent argument on his collateral estoppel argument; and (3) therefore, the district court properly granted Defendant's motion to dismiss. View "Mitchell v. Rust" on Justia Law