Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant was charged with a felony DUI, his fourth, after a law enforcement officer was informed that Defendant had been drinking and was about to drive his vehicle. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, claiming that his stop and arrest were unconstitutional because the officer's actions were based upon a tip from an unidentified informant. The motion was denied, and Defendant was found guilty after a jury trial. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding (1) the district court properly denied Defendant's motion to suppress, where the totality of the circumstances in this case created reasonable suspicion that Defendant was committing a crime and because the informant was not anonymous; and (2) there was substantial evidence for a jury to convict Defendant at trial. View "Venegas v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of sexual exploitation of a child. Defendant appealed, contending (1) the district court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal for lack of sufficient evidence, and (2) the jury's verdict was tainted by prosecutorial misconduct. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction, holding (1) sufficient evidence existed for the case to be submitted to the jury, and therefore, the district court correctly denied Defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal and allowed the jury to ultimately determine whether the State had proved his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; and (2) the prosecutor did not engage in impermissible misconduct. View "Craft v. State" on Justia Law

Mother and Father shared joint custody of their two children after their divorce. In 2011, Mother filed a notice of intent to relocate, indicating that she intended to move with the children to Virginia. Father subsequently filed a petition for modification of custody alleging that Mother's anticipated move constituted a material change in circumstances with respect to custody and visitation. Following the criteria set forth in Watt v. Watt, the district court concluded that Father had not established that Mother's relocation constituted a material change of circumstances sufficient to warrant consideration of a change in custody. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Watt's prohibition against considering relocation as a factor contributing to a material change in circumstances was overruled; and (2) remand was required to consider how the absence of the presumption in favor of the relocating, custodial parent created in Watt will affect the court's decision in this case. View "Arnott v. Arnott" on Justia Law

C&J, LLC owned 2.04 acres of property. The northern portion was zoned for commercial use, and the southern portion was zoned for a single-family residence. C&J filed an application requesting approval to develop the single-family residential zone. The Teton County Board of Commissioners approved C&J's final development plan application allowing C&J to construct five residential units and one affordable housing unit in the single-family residential zone. It also allowed commercial parking and other commercial uses. Appellant Wilson Advisory Committee, a non-profit corporation representing citizens concerned about the development of Wilson, petitioned for judicial review. The district court affirmed the Board's decision. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and remanded to require the Board to make findings called for by its own regulations as to whether or not the proposed location and density improved scenic views and lessened adverse environmental impacts. View "Wilson Advisory Comm. v. Bd. of County Comm'rs" on Justia Law

In 1994, while working on a drilling rig, Appellant fell and injured his back. Consequently, Appellant had three back surgeries between 1995 and 2004. The Worker's Compensation Division paid Appellant worker's compensation benefits for his treatment from the date of his injury through the 2004 surgery. In 2009, Appellant fell on the ice at his home and underwent a fourth back surgery, for which he sought benefits. The Division denied Appellant's claim, and the Medical Commission upheld the denial, concluding that Appellant failed to prove the 2009 surgery was causally connected to his 1994 work injury. The district court affirmed the denial. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the Commission applied the incorrect legal standard in determining whether Appellant proved that his 2009 surgery was causally connected to his 1994 work injury; and (2) under the correct legal standard, the decision to reject Appellant's evidence was contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Remanded. View "Hoffman v. State ex rel. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div." on Justia Law

Appellant was the mother of five children. After Appellant was arrested, the children were taken into protective custody. The county attorney filed a neglect petition in juvenile court, and Appellant admitted to the allegations of neglect. Some months later, the Department of Family Services filed a petition to terminate Appellant's parental rights alleging (1) the children had been neglected, efforts to rehabilitate the family had been unsuccessful, and the children's health and safety would be seriously jeopardized by returning to their mother; and (2) the children had been in foster care for fifteen of the most recent twenty-two months, and Appellant was unfit to have custody and control of her children. The district court found that the evidence supported termination of Appellant's rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that sufficient evidence supported the district court's decision. View "HMH v. State, Dep't of Family Servs." on Justia Law

Kyle Regan and Joseph Parsons, in separate incidents, were both arrested for driving while under the influence. Each appellant consented to chemical testing, and based on the test results, each Appellant had his driver's license administratively suspended. Both Appellants challenged their suspensions, claiming that their consent to chemical sentence was invalid because they had been threatened with jail time under a Laramie ordinance if they did not consent to the testing. The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) upheld the suspension in each case. Each Appellant challenged the implied consent advisement as affected by the Laramie ordinance. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the OAH ruled in accordance with law in determining that Appellants were given the statutorily required implied consent advisements, and it properly declined to rule on their remaining contentions as beyond the scope of the administrative proceeding and outside the jurisdiction of the OAH. View "Regan v. State ex rel. Dep't of Transp." on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of making a false written statement to obtain property and was sentenced to a two to five year period of incarceration. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. Appellant later filed a motion entitled "Motion to Execute Sentence." The district court denied the motion. Appellant appealed, arguing that the district court's sentence should be ordered to be executed to give effect to subsequent sentences in other jurisdictions and to avoid an illegal sentence. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant's appeal, holding that the district court was without jurisdiction to consider Appellant's motion, as it was not a motion to correct an illegal sentence, and it was not a motion otherwise expressly provided for by rule or statute. Consequently, the Court was without jurisdiction to consider this appeal. View "Kurtenbach v. State" on Justia Law

Appellants both had their driver's licenses suspended, and both requested a contested case hearing with the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) to challenge the suspension. Appellants made several arguments regarding the validity of Laramie Enrolled Ordinance 1592, which makes it a misdemeanor to refuse to submit to a chemical test and enhances the penalties for driving under the influence if a chemical test reveals a certain elevated blood alcohol level. In each case, the OAH determined it did not have the authority to consider the validity of the ordinance and upheld the suspension of Appellants' driver's licenses. The district court upheld the OAH's decision and dismissed Appellants' request for a declaration that the ordinance was unenforceable and unconstitutional on the basis that Appellants failed to raise a justiciable controversy. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the OAH appropriately found that the ordinance did not change the nature of the advisements law enforcement officers were required to provide an individual pursuant to the state's implied consent statutes; (2) the OAH also properly upheld Appellants' driver's license suspensions; and (3) the district court did not err when it dismissed Appellants' petition for declaratory relief. View "Sandoval v. State" on Justia Law

In 1982, Appellant pled guilty to aggravated robbery, among other crimes, in both Sweetwater and Uinta Counties. In subsequently federal court proceedings, the convictions in both counties were set aside. In the following state court proceedings, Appellant once again pled guilty to the charges. Upon resentencing in 1989, Appellant was sentenced to forty-five to fifty years for the Uinta County aggravated robbery charge. After serving thirty years in prison, Appellant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence. Appellant argued that the aggravated robbery statute, amended in 1983, applied retroactively, and thus, his forty-five to fifty year sentence was illegal because it exceeded the new statutory maximum. The district court granted the motion and reduced Appellant's sentence in the Uinta County aggravated robbery charge. On appeal, Appellant challenged various aspects of the district court's rulings on his motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) ruling that Appellant did not have the constitutional right to be present at the hearing in which the district court considered his motion and reduced his sentence; and (2) modifying Appellant's sentence without allowing him to withdraw the guilty plea. View "Osborn v. State" on Justia Law