Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant pled guilty to attempted second degree murder in an oral plea agreement and was sentenced to a term of twenty-five to fifty years in prison. The district court also awarded restitution. Appellant later removed to withdraw his plea, claiming that his attorney conspired with the court, misled him about the term he would serve, and coerced him into pleading guilty. The district court denied the motion, concluding that Appellant failed to demonstrate manifest injustice. Appellant appealed, claiming the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and in awarding restitution. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Appellant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea; and (2) the district court had authority to award restitution and to waive public defender fees. View "Chapman v. State" on Justia Law

Father and Mother divorced in 1990. The parties agreed that each parent would have custody of one child. In 1999, the parties stipulated to a modification of their divorce decree, agreeing that Father would have primary custody of both children. The district court ordered that the parties file further information as to child support, but neither party responded. The case remained inactive until 2003, when Father filed a motion for order to appear and show cause, requesting that the district court order Mother to pay her half of the children's expenses. The court ordered Mother to pay child support and certain related expenses. In 2009, the Wyoming Department of Family Services (Department) filed an action to enforce the 2003 order. Instead of enforcing the order, the district court set it aside, ordered that the child support obligation be recalculated, and directed that the revised child support obligation be applied retroactive to 1999. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court was without jurisdiction to modify the 2003 child support order where no petition to modify had been filed. Remanded. View "State, Dep't of Family Servs. v. Powell" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of aggravated assault and battery. The jury found Defendant guilty of threatening to use a drawn deadly weapon on another person, which was one of the State's two theories it advanced that Defendant committed aggravated assault. Defendant filed a motion for a new trial because the district court failed to instruct the jury that he had no duty to retreat before "threatening to use a drawn deadly weapon." The district court denied the motion and sentenced Defendant. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the jury instructions at issue did not violate a clear and unequivocal rule of law, and therefore, Defendant failed to establish plain error in the district court's denial of Defendant's motion for a new trial. View "Mendoza v. State" on Justia Law

Debtor borrowed money to finance a real estate purchase. Debtor signed a promissory note and secured the loan with a mortgage. Bank of America (BANA) became the owner of the note. After the mortgage was recorded, an assignment of the mortgage to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) was recorded. MERS subsequently assigned the mortgage to BAC Home Loans Servicing (BAC), which was servicing the loan on behalf of BANA. After Debtor defaulted on her home loan, she and her husband filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. The bankruptcy trustee subsequently initiated an adversary proceeding against BAC, seeking to avoid the mortgage for its failure to comply with the requirements of Wyo. Stat. Ann. 34-2-122 and -123 (the statutes), notice statutes intended to protect third parties from conflicting claims of a principal and agent. The U.S. bankruptcy court filed a certification order to the Wyoming Supreme Court requesting the Court to answer with the mortgage must comply with the requirements of the statutes. The Supreme Court held that the statutes did not apply in this case because there were no conflicting claims by a principal and an agent from which a third party needed protection. View "Barney v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P." on Justia Law

In 2005, the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) hired Plaintiff. In 2007, the DEQ terminated Plaintiff on the ground that he improperly incurred $2,500 in personal charges on a state-issued cell phone. Plaintiff challenged his termination, claiming the ground was pretext, and the Office of Administrative Hearings reinstated Plaintiff to his original position. The DEQ sought review of that position in district court and made an offer to settle, to which Plaintiff did not respond. The DEQ subsequently notified Plaintiff it was accepting his resignation because he had taken a job in Montana. The DEQ then withdrew its petition for review. In 2009, Plaintiff filed suit in federal district court, claiming the DEQ's failure to comply with the conditions of his proffered resignation constituted wrongful termination. The federal court dismissed the lawsuit. Plaintiff then filed suit in district court, alleging, inter alia, breach of contract and breach of the purported settlement agreement. The district court dismissed the case, ruling that Plaintiff's claims were time-barred. The Supreme Court dismissed Plaintiff's appeal for failure to follow the Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure. View "Armstrong v. Wyo. Dep't of Envtl. Quality" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of larceny. Defendant appealed, claiming that the factual basis provided by the State for his guilty plea was inadequate as a matter of law because it did not establish the "taking" element of the crime of larceny. The State argued that the factual basis was sufficient because Defendant entered a voluntary plea and the facts established that he committed some crime even though the elements of the larceny statute were not satisfied. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court committed plain error by entering judgment on Defendant's guilty plea when it was not supported by a sufficient factual basis. View "Nguyen v. State" on Justia Law

The parties to the dispute were two rural landowners who owned easements crossing a parcel of ranchland. When Appellant improved the common roadway and asked his neighbor, Appellee, to contribute to the cost of the improvements, Appellee brought suit against Appellant seeking a declaratory judgment as to the parties' respective rights and duties relating to the maintenance and repair of the road. Appellee also sought injunctive relief and damages for Appellant's alleged interference with Appellee's use of the easement. Appellant counterclaimed for equitable contribution from Appellee for the costs he incurred in improving the road. The district court ruled in Appellee's favor. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the district court's denial of Appellant's request for equitable contribution; but (2) reversed its declaration of the parties' rights regarding any future maintenance work and as to the rights of the parties to recover for repair and maintenance they perform. Remanded. View "Koch v. J&J Ranch, LLC" on Justia Law

The manager of the Wyoming Universal Service Fund (WUSF) filed confidential reports with the Wyoming Public Service Commission (PSC) containing his recommendations for the WUSF assessment level for fiscal years 2009 and 2010. Upon notice from the PSC that public hearings would be held to consider the manager's reports, Qwest asked for contested case hearings. The PSC denied Qwest's requests, concluding that WUSF proceedings are legislative in nature. The PSC subsequently issued orders establishing the WUSF assessment levels as recommended by the manager. The Office of Consumer Advocate and Qwest filed petitions for review of the PSC order. The district court held that the PSC erred in denying Qwest's requests for contested case hearings, reversed the administrative orders, and ordered portions of the 2009 data to be provided to Qwest but denied the request for 2010 data. Four notices of appeal from the district court's order were filed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Qwest was entitled to contested case hearings before the PSC. Remanded for contested case hearings. View "Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Wyo. v. Qwest Corp." on Justia Law

The State filed a petition in juvenile court alleging that SWM, a minor, had committed two delinquent acts. SWM's counsel filed a motion to suspend proceedings for evaluation under Wyo. Stat. Ann. 7-11-303 and Wyo. Stat. Ann. 14-6-219. The juvenile court granted the motion, determining that sections 7-11-303 and 14-6-219 required an examination of SWM for competency to proceed. After the report under section 7-11-303 was filed, the State filed a motion asking the court to strike the portions of SWM's forensic evaluation that were conducted pursuant to section 7-11-303 as irrelevant to the proceedings. The juvenile court granted the motion and subsequently found SWM was competent to proceed. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding (1) the due process considerations that underlie section 7-11-303 also apply in determining the competency of a minor under section 14-6-219; and (2) although the juvenile court ordered a competency evaluation and ruled that SWM was competent to proceed, it did not evaluate SWM under the correct standards, and therefore, SWM's due process right not to proceed unless competent was not property protected. Remanded. View "In re Interest of SWM" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of first-degree felony murder, aggravated burglary, and conspiracy to commit aggravated burglary. Defendant appealed, challenging his convictions on a number of grounds and contending that his sentence of life without the possibility of parole was unconstitutional under the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Miller v. Alabama. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed Defendant's convictions; but (2) vacated Sen's sentences, holding that Sen's sentence of life without the possibility of parole for first-degree felony murder was issued pursuant to a sentencing scheme that violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Remanded for resentencing on all counts. View "Sen v. State" on Justia Law