Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The South Wilderness Ranch Homeowners Association (HOA) filed an action against William Fix to recover $2,500 in assessments he allegedly owed as a lot owner in the South Wilderness Ranches Subdivision. The HOA also sought interest and attorney fees. Mr. Fix denied that he owed the assessments and filed a counterclaim seeking a judicial determination that the covenants pursuant to which the assessments were to be paid were null and void. In the alternative, he sought damages for injuries he allegedly sustained when the HOA failed to enforce the covenants and allowed his neighbor to build a fence that violated the covenants. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the HOA on its claim for the assessments, interest and attorney fees. Subsequently, the court severed Mr. Fix’s counterclaim from the rest of the case and entered judgment for the HOA on its complaint in the amount of the $2,500 assessments, plus pre-judgment interest, attorney fees and costs, for a total judgment of $22,077.38. Mr. Fix appealed, claiming the district court erred in granting summary judgment against him on the HOA’s complaint and severing his counterclaim. He also claimed the attorney fees and costs award was excessive. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order and judgment with the exception that it vacated the costs awarded for legal research. View "Fix v. South Wilderness Ranch Homeowners Ass'n" on Justia Law

This appeal arose out of Ryan Dorman's petition for an extension of his worker's compensation temporary total disability (TTD) benefits and for reimbursement of travel expenses incurred in travelling from Idaho to Cheyenne to obtain medical care. In May 2006, Dorman sought treatment from an Idaho physician for treatment of his alleged work-related injury. Due to the nature of Dorman's injury, he consulted multiple physicians, first in Idaho, then in Wyoming. With each consultation, the doctors indicated that the injury was outside of their scope of expertise, and referred Doman to another specialist. During the period that Dorman was changing physicians, the Division and Dorman negotiated a stipulation concerning his TTD benefits and other benefits. This followed OAH and district court decisions that largely reversed the Division's earlier determinations concerning TTD benefits and Dorman's need for continued medical treatment. The Stipulated Order also provided that medical benefits would be paid as directed by the district court's order. After the Division paid the stipulated TTD benefits, Dorman submitted a letter to the Division requesting extended benefits The Division thereafter issued a final determination denying them, and further denied several applications for travel expense reimbursement for Dorman's trips to Idaho and Cheyenne. The matters were referred to the OAH where a combined hearing was held on the denial of TTD benefits, denial of travel reimbursement, and denial of diagnostic testing related to Dorman's injury. The OAH upheld the denial of TTD benefits on the ground that Dorman had failed to make the required showing that the Idaho and Cheyenne doctors were the closest available medical providers. Dorman appealed the portion of the OAH order denying extended TTD benefits and travel reimbursement to the district court. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the OAH denial of the travel reimbursement: Dorman could not prove that reimbursement of travel expenses was not supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law. View "Dorman v. Wyoming" on Justia Law

The Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division awarded benefits to Appellant Gary Mitcheson after he fell at work and injured his tailbone in July of 2007. Approximately two years later, the Division issued a final determination denying payment for medical care that Appellant claimed was related to his workplace injury. Appellant requested a contested case hearing, and the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) upheld the Division's determination. Appellant appealed to the district court, which upheld the OAH's order. On appeal, Appellant challenged the OAH order contending: (1) the order was arbitrary and unsupported by substantial evidence; (2) the OAH's denial of payment for treating Appellant's tailbone was arbitrary; and (3) the OAH order denying payment for medical care contrary to the "Rule Out" rule was contrary to law. Finding the issues Appellant raised on appeal to be without merit, the Supreme Court affirmed the OAH's decision. View "Mitcheson v. Wyoming" on Justia Law

Defendant Kevin Kidwell challenged his convictions for false imprisonment and simple assault. He claims the prosecutor committed misconduct by failing to give prior notice of evidence suggesting he had attempted to persuade a witness to testify falsely in his favor at trial in violation of W.R.E. 404(b). Defendant was charged with kidnapping and aggravated assault and battery after a 2010 incident where Defendant and his girlfriend got into an altercation. The girlfriend was admitted to the hospital with bruises and other symptoms from having been choked. The defense listed Andrew Scott as a witness. Scott had been Defendant's former cellmate while incarcerated, and reported on another altercation between Defendant and his girlfriend in which the girlfriend had been the aggressor. Although he had been listed as a defense witness, the prosecution called Scott to the stand and had him recount his original plan to testify in Defendant's favor and his subsequent change of heart. Defendant did not object to the State calling Scott as a witness nor Scott's story. A jury eventually returned a verdict "decidedly favorable" to Defendant: they acquitted him on the kidnapping and aggravated assault and battery charges, and the lesser included offense of felonious restraint. They convicted him however, of the lesser included misdemeanor, false imprisonment. The appeal came before the Supreme Court on an unusual procedural stance: although Defendant claimed the evidence of Scott's plan to testify falsely was "other bad acts" evidence and governed by W.R.E. 404(b), he did not specifically challenge the admissibility of the evidence or analyze it under the relevant factors. Instead, Defendant maintained that the prosecutor committed misconduct by failing to give Defendant notice of Scott's testimony. Finding that Defendant failed to demonstrate a clear violation of law or any prejudice, the Supreme Court affirmed his convictions. View "Kidwell v. Wyoming" on Justia Law

Defendant Michael Patterson challenged the sentence he was serving on his conviction as an accessory to second degree murder. Defendant was sentenced to a mandatory twenty-year term for his crime. Less than a month later, the State filed a “Motion for Correction of Sentence” in the case. The motion cited Wyo. Stat. Ann. 7-13-201, which requires that the minimum sentence be no greater than 90% of the maximum. The State asked to change the original sentence of 20-22 years to a sentence of 240-267 months, adding three months to the maximum sentence. The district court granted the motion the day after it was filed, and imposed a new sentence of 240-267 months. A year and a half later, Defendant filed a pro se Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence. He contended that a sentence of 20-22 years was illegal because it violated the requirement of Wyo. Stat. Ann. 7-13-201 that the minimum be no more than 90% of the maximum. He asserted that his sentence could not be legally increased after he had begun serving it, and proposed a new sentence of 19-22 years. Four months later, Defendant filed an Amended Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence. All of the previous post-sentencing pleadings filed by or on behalf of Defendant had recited that his sentence was 20-22 years. This amended motion was the first to recognize that his sentence had been increased to 240-267 months. Defendant argued that the increase in his sentence violated his rights against double jeopardy, and further, violated his rights to due process because the sentence was increased without notice to him and without an opportunity for a hearing. The Public Defender’s Office was appointed to represent Defendant, and it filed a supplemental motion and brief on his behalf. After a hearing, the district court set aside the previous order increasing Defendant's sentence from 20-22 years to 240-267 months, and reinstated the original sentence of 20-22 years. The district court acknowledged that this original sentence was technically illegal because the minimum exceeded 90% of the maximum. It noted, however, that the minimum sentence was only "90.09 percent rather than 90 or less" of the maximum sentence. The district court characterized this as a "small deviation," and concluded that "the original sentence was not illegal because it substantially complied" with the statute. Defendant appealed the district court's order. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that Defendant's original sentence was illegal and must be set aside. The Court concluded that the reinstituted sentence of 20-22 years was also illegal, and set that sentence aside too. The case was remanded for resentencing. View "Patterson v. Wyoming" on Justia Law

Applicants Wagonhound Land and Livestock Company, LLC, VenJohn Oil, Inc., and Steven M. VenJohn filed a petition with the Wyoming State Board of Control seeking to change the place of use, point of diversion and means of conveyance for water appropriations attached to 174.8 acres. VenJohn owned the appropriations from the North Platte River and requested that the point of diversion and place of use of the rights be moved upstream to Wagonhound’s land. Vic and Jane Garber and several others who were intervening water right holders, objected to the petition, and the Board held a contested case hearing. The Board granted the Applicants’ petition but reduced the transferred rights to 152.5 acres. The Objectors unsuccessfully petitioned the district court for review of the Board decision. On appeal to the Supreme Court, they challenged: the sufficiency of the evidence presented in the Board's record; and whether the final decision was in violation of Wyo. Stats. 41-3-104 and 41-3-114. Although the Objectors claimed the defects in the original petition required reversal of the Board’s decision, the Supreme Court found that they did not sufficiently explain why the amendment process was inappropriate or how it violated statute or board rules. The Objectors also did not demonstrate how the other landowners were injured by the petition or the process employed by the Board. Without further explanation, the Court could not accept their argument, and affirmed the Board's decision. View "Garber v. Wagonhound Livestock & Land Company, LLC" on Justia Law

Appellant Kristen Spreeman was convicted of felony driving while under the influence (DWUI) in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. 31-5-233(b)(iii)(A) and (e). Appellant appealed, claiming that she did not have three prior qualifying convictions as required by section 31-5-233(e) to enhance her DWUI conviction to a felony. Specifically, Appellant contended that driving while "visibly impaired" under Mich. Comp. Laws 257.625(3) did not constitute an "other law prohibiting driving while under the influence" under section 31-5-233(e). The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding (1) Wyoming's enhancement provision does not restrict qualifying convictions to offenses that arise from violations of laws that are identical, or even substantially similar, to Wyoming's definition of driving while under the influence; and (2) therefore, Appellant's Michigan conviction for driving while visibly impaired may be used to enhance the current conviction to a felony. View "Spreeman v. State" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Vincent Scott of first degree sexual assault, aggravated assault, and child abuse. Scott appealed, claiming the district court denied his Sixth Amendment right to represent himself at trial and imposed an illegal sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court in this case had the discretion to deny Scott's untimely request to proceed without counsel, and although it erred in denying the request on the grounds that Scott's decision was not knowing and intelligent, the request was properly denied as untimely; and (2) the sentence imposed was not impossible or illegal because the district court awarded credit for time served, which made the sentencing scheme possible. View "Scott v. State" on Justia Law

A Wyoming Highway Patrol Trooper stopped Bryan Phelps and Justin Fitch for a traffic violation, detained them, conducted a drug dog sniff of their vehicle and, after the dog alerted to the presence of controlled substances, searched the vehicle and found marijuana. Phelps and Fitch were each charged with three felonies. They moved to suppress the evidence seized during the search, and the district court denied the motion. Phelps and Fitch subsequently entered pleas of guilty to one of the counts while reserving their right to appeal the denial of their suppression motion. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the suppression motion, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that probable cause existed for the search. View "Phelps v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant Charles Jones was convicted of aggravated robbery and first-degree murder. Jones appealed, arguing that the trial judge erroneously instructed the jury, that there was insufficient evidence to convict him, and that the prosecutor committed cumulative error. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial judge's failure to give an intent instruction was harmless, as there was no prejudice to Jones; (2) the jury had sufficient evidence to convict Jones of robbery; and (3) Jones was not denied his right to a fair trial due to the cumulative effect of any alleged prosecutorial misconduct that may have occurred. View "Jones v. State" on Justia Law