Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant was convicted of one count of first-degree sexual abuse of a minor and eight counts of second-degree sexual abuse of a minor. In this appeal, Appellant raised eight issues where he claimed there was an error in his trial. The Supreme Court reversed Appellant's convictions and remanded for a new trial, holding (1) the district court's decision finding the victim was competent to testify was clearly erroneous, as there was no evidence to support the conclusion that the victim understood the obligation to tell the truth while testifying, and the error was not harmless; (2) the admission of evidence that Appellant visited several pornographic websites on the Internet and admission of photos of the victim and his brother engaging in innocent activities in the nude, pursuant to Wyo. R. Evid. 404(b), was prejudicial error; (3) the district court's statement to the jury that they would hear about child pornography websites constituted plain error; and (4) plain error occurred when the interviewer expressed his opinion that Appellant was lying during the interview. View "Mersereau v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant pled guilty to six counts of second-degree sexual assault in 2000 and was sentenced to six consecutive life terms. In this appeal, Appellant, acting pro se, challenged the district court's denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence under Wyo. R. Crim. P. 35(a). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court correctly concluded that Appellant's claims of illegal sentence were barred by the doctrine of res judicata; and (2) Appellant's claims that his sentence was illegal due to alleged inaccuracies in the presentence investigation report and that the sentencing court erred in denying correction of factual inaccuracies in the presentence investigation report were barred by res judicata. View "Deloge v. State" on Justia Law

In 2005, the Wyo Central Federal Credit Union (Credit Union) filed an action in state district court against Mark Broderick (Broderick) seeking judgment and foreclosure on a note and mortgage on which Broderick had defaulted. Broderick immediately filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition, which stayed the Credit Union’s state court action. Following the conclusion of the bankruptcy proceedings, which cured Broderick’s original default under the note and mortgage but did not discharge the debt, Broderick again defaulted on the note. In 2010, the Credit Union amended its original complaint and again sought judgment and foreclosure on its note and mortgage. The district court granted the Credit Union summary judgment both on the amount the Credit Union demanded as due and owing under the note and on the attorney fees and costs it requested pursuant to the mortgage enforcement terms. Broderick raised the following issues on appeal, all of them relating to the award of attorney fees and costs: (1) whether the determination by a state court of an oversecured creditor’s attorney fees incurred in a bankruptcy proceeding is subject to the Preemption Doctrine; (2) whether the Credit Union should be denied its attorney fees by its failure to submit these fees to the Bankruptcy Court for approval; and (3) whether the Credit Union proved its damages with a reasonable degree of certainty. Upon review, the Supreme Court determined that the district court acted within its discretion in its award of fees and costs to the Credit Union, and its order did not violate bankruptcy law or procedure. View "Broderick v. Wyo Central Fed. Credit Union" on Justia Law

In July 2008, Appellant-Plaintiff Monica Claman purchased a house in Rock Springs, Wyoming, from Appellee-Defendant Jean Popp. In September 2008, Appellant filed an action against Popp based on subsidence-caused defects in the house. The district court entered summary judgment against Appellant on her breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation claims, and following a bench trial, it entered judgment against her on her fraudulent inducement claim. The issues on appeal were: (1) whether the trial court appropriately entered summary judgment against Appellant as to her breach of contract claim; (2) whether the trial court appropriately entered summary judgment against Appellant as to her claim for negligence/negligent misrepresentation; and, (3) whether the district court erred in its conclusions relating to the Department of Environmental Quality. Finding that the district court's summary judgment against Appellant's breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation claims were in accordance with law and undisputed facts, and that the court's findings of fact on the fraudulent inducement claim were not clearly erroneous, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision. View "Claman v. Popp" on Justia Law

Ricky D. Miller challenged a hearing examiner's order upholding his per se driver's license suspension. In his only issue, Miller argued that his breath test was invalid because Corporal Karr's (the test administrator) operator permit for the test equipment was not valid. Miller argued that the evidence established, and the OAH found, that Corporal Karr did not properly maintain her certification and should have been decertified. Considering the applicable statues and Wyoming's relevant case law under the facts of this case, the Supreme Court concluded that under the DOH's Rules and Regulations for Chemical Analysis for Alcohol Testing, Chapter IV, Section 4, the operator's permit in this case was valid because the state agency had not deemed otherwise and had not notified the permittee. "Certainly, there is tension between the quoted rule and the DOH rule . . . However, we conclude that section 4 is controlling, as suggested by this Court in Miller's earlier appeal." The hearing examiner's decision was affirmed, and Miller's per se driver's license suspension stood. View "Miller v. Wyoming" on Justia Law

Northwest Building Company, LLC (Contractor) performed construction services for Northwest Distributing Co., Inc. (Owner) on a Taco John’s/Good Times facility in Gillette, Wyoming. Contractor brought an action against Owner seeking payment for its services, and Owner counterclaimed. After Contractor’s attorney moved to withdraw, the district court ordered Contractor to find substitute counsel in time for the pretrial conference. When Contractor was unable to find substitute counsel by the deadline, the district court sanctioned it by dismissing its complaint and granting judgment in favor of Owner on its counterclaims. Contractor appealed, raising a number of procedural issues. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the Contractor's complaint, and affirmed the lower court's judgment. View "Northwest Building Company, LLC v. Northwest Distributing Co., Inc." on Justia Law

Appellant Billie Colleen Johnson was convicted of two counts of delivery of methamphetamine. On appeal, she claimed that the district court abused its discretion when it allowed the Confidential Informant (CI) to testify, although Appellant was not given the CI’s telephone number. She also argued that the district court violated her constitutional rights when it considered the appellant’s failure to take responsibility for her criminal activity at sentencing. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Johnson v. Wyoming" on Justia Law

As a beneficiary of a trust created by her grandfather, Plaintiff-Appellant Courtney Evans brought an action against the trustee, Peter F. Moyer, for an accounting and distribution of income. The district court generally ruled in Mr. Moyer's favor, and Plaintiff appealed arguing that the district court's interpretation of the trust was erroneous and Mr. Moyer's accounting was insufficient. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its interpretation of the trust. Accordingly, the Court affirmed. View "Evans v. Moyer" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant Steve Edward Dobbins pled no contest to one count of sexual assault in the first degree. In this consolidated appeal, Defendant contended that the district court should have permitted him to withdraw his plea, both before and after sentencing. Specifically, he complained that he should have been allowed to withdraw his plea of no contest prior to being sentenced because he did not have close assistance of counsel and that he had a fair and just reason to withdraw his plea. Furthermore, Defendant argued that he should have been allowed to withdraw his plea of no contest after sentencing because the district court failed to properly advise him as required by W.R.Cr.P. 11, resulting in manifest injustice. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the denial of both of Defendant's motions to withdraw his no contest plea, and affirmed the judgment and sentence. View "Dobbins v. Wyoming" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Gary Carter was tried and convicted by a jury of a single felony charge of possessing, with intent to deliver, two grams of methamphetamine. The court sentenced Defendant to twelve to fifteen years in the Wyoming State Penitentiary. On appeal, Defendant contended that plain error occurred when the prosecutor elicited expert witness testimony that Defendant was guilty of being a drug dealer. Furthermore, Defendant alleged that the prosecutor committed misconduct when arguing facts not in evidence during closing argument. Upon review of the record, the Supreme Court concluded that when considered in conjunction with the expert witness testimony, the "troublesome comments" made during closing presented a reasonable probability that Defendant's right to a fair trial was affected: "[t]he information, while subtle, came directly from the prosecutor and did more than insinuate." The Court remanded the case for a new trial. View "Carter v. Wyoming" on Justia Law