Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant was convicted of first-degree sexual assault and robbery. After losing his appeal, Appellant filed a verified petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that his appellate counsel was ineffective. The district court granted the State's motion to dismiss, concluding that Appellant's claim was procedurally barred pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. 7-14-103(a)(iii) because he raised a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel in his direct appeal, which was decided on the merits. The Supreme Court likewise dismissed the petition, holding (1) where a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel has been raised and decided against the appellant in his direct appeal, he may not raise a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, based upon different allegations, in a petition for post-conviction relief, as the claim is procedurally barred by section 7-14-103(a)(iii); and (2) a stand-alone claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is not cognizable under the post-conviction relief statutes because post-conviction relief is limited to the alleged denial of constitutional rights during the proceedings that resulted in conviction. View "Schreibvogel v. State " on Justia Law

A police officer was presented with an emergency situation when, upon entering Appellant Joseph Owens' motel room, he found Appellant convulsing on the floor. The officer subsequently searched Appellant's backpack and the containers found therein in an attempt to aid Appellant and discovered methamphetamine. Appellant subsequently entered a conditional guilty plea to felony possession of methamphetamine. Owens reserved the right to appeal the constitutionality of the search that resulted in discovery of the methamphetamine. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that under the circumstances presented, the State satisfied its burden of establishing specific and articulable facts showing that the search was justified pursuant to the officer's community caretaker function. View "Owens v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant Derrick Brock, the assistant manager at a restaurant, failed to deposit the restaurant's previous two day earnings at the bank, and afterwards, never returned to work. Following a jury trial, Appellant Derrick Brock was convicted of larceny by bailee. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to call investigating officers to testify regarding their investigation; (2) trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to investigate or interview or call key witnesses with possibly exculpatory information; and (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sustaining the prosecution's objection to cross-examination of a witness regarding statements made to the police. View "Brock v. State" on Justia Law

Rebecca Fulmer suffered injuries on two separate dates while working as a nursing assistant at Shepherd of the Valley Care Center. Fulmer submitted worker's compensation claims for both injuries, and the Workers' Safety and Compensation Division denied benefits for the two injuries. The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) upheld the denial of benefits, concluding that Fulmer was not entitled to benefits (1) for her first injury because it was the result of Fulmer's own culpable negligence, and (2) for her second injury because it was caused not by her work but by normal activities of day-to-day living. The district court reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court and held that Fulmer was entitled to benefits for both of her injuries where Shepherd did not meet its burden of proving (1) Fulmer's actions were willful and serious misconduct that constituted culpable negligence with her first injury, and (2) a normal activity of day-to-day living caused Fulmer's hip fracture. Remanded. View "Shepherd of the Valley Care Ctr. v. Fulmer" on Justia Law

Appellant, Andy Lovato, entered a conditional guilty plea to one count of possession of methamphetamine. Appellant appealed, claiming the district court incorrectly concluded that his right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures was not violated when he was seized by the police. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err when it denied Appellant's motion to suppress evidence because the police had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity justifying briefly detaining Appellant for further investigation; and (2) the police had probable cause to arrest Appellant for interference when a peace officer after he failed to obey one officer's commands to stop and then struggled with the police officers. View "Lovato v. State" on Justia Law

This case began in 2004 when Margo Belden and Fish Creek Designs, LLC filed suit against John Thorkildsen, claiming a breach of the LLC agreement and that Thorkildsen and his wife owned Fish Creek for payments it made on a loan. The case was appealed and remanded several times, largely in relation to Thorkildsen's motion for attorney fees and costs. In the fourth appeal of this matter, the Supreme Court took the unusual step of making a factual determination that the attorney fees Thorkildsen requested were reasonable and, in a specific remand, directed the district court to enter an order awarding Thorkildsen attorney fees in the amount of $77,475. In the fifth appeal of the matter, Thorkildsen challenged the district court's entry of the order the Court directed, claiming he was entitled to prejudgment interest on the fee award. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the award of Thorkildsen's attorney fees was not a liquidated claim, and therefore, Thorkildsen was not entitled to prejudgment interest on the award. View "Thorkildsen v. Belden" on Justia Law

Appellant Timothy Shaeffer was convicted of aggravated assault and battery after he waved around a flare gun during an altercation at a bar. On appeal, Appellant claimed he was subject to numerous errors, which affected his right to a fair trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to appoint Appellant new counsel on the second day of trial; (2) the trial court did not violate Appellant's right to self-representation, as Appellant never made an unequivocal request to represent himself; (3) the trial court did not require Appellant to wear excessive physical restraints, and the trial court's failure to not instruct the jury regarding the shackles did not constitute plain error; (4) after Appellant had been deemed competent to proceed, the circumstances at trial were not such that would have required an additional competency evaluation; (5) the trial court did not exhibit judicial bias against Appellant; and (6) the State did not provide the trial court with inappropriate or incorrect information at the sentencing hearing. View "Schaeffer v. State" on Justia Law

James Schlinger owned and operated Curtis Excavation and WW Construction. Schlinger, acting as president of WW Construction, entered into an oral agreement to lease his business and all associated equipment and land to Christopher McGhee and Jack Robinson. McGhee and Robinson formed Curtis-Westwood Construction as the entity to lease and operate the business. After eight months, Schlinger determined McGhee and Robinson were not properly managing the business and terminated the oral lease agreement. The parties disputed the financial implications of the termination. After a bench trial, the district court determined that Schlinger breached his oral agreement with Appellees, McGhee, Robinson, and Curtis-Westood Construction, and that Schlinger owed Plaintiffs $206,875. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the district court's judgment on Appellees' breach of contract claim and rejected Appellants' argument that they should be awarded breach of contract damages, holding that the district court committed clear error in awarding damages as there was insufficient evidence in the record to justify an award of damages to either party; and (2) affirmed the district court's denial of Schlinger's claims for recovery under the theory of unjust enrichment, holding that Schlinger's claims were unsupported by the evidence. View "Schlinger v. McGhee" on Justia Law

In 2008-2009, Scott Davenport sought worker's compensation benefits for medical care and surgery to fuse vertebrae in his lumbar spine. The Workers' Safety and Compensation Division denied benefits on the basis that Davenport's 2008-2009 back problems were not caused by work related injuries Davenport suffered in 1984 and 1985. The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) upheld the Division's denial of benefits, ruling that the procedure was necessitated by a preexisting congenital defect in Davenport's lumbar spine and not his prior work related injuries. The district court affirmed the OAH decision. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the OAH decision was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence and was, therefore, supported by substantial evidence in the record. View "Davenport v. State ex rel. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div." on Justia Law

In 2008, the Teton County Commission approved a parcel boundary adjustment application regarding certain real property located in Teton County. Appellees, several individuals, sought judicial review of the Commission's decision. In 2008 and 2009, respectively, Appellants, Mark Menolascino and William Hirshberg, purchased the property. Neither sought to intervene in the judicial review proceedings. In 2011, the reviewing district court reversed the Commission's decision. The parties to the original administrative proceedings declined to appeal the ruling. Appellants, however, filed a notice of appeal. They contemporaneously filed a motion to intervene in the district court proceedings for the sole purpose of pursuing the appeal therefrom. The district court denied their motion to intervene, a decision which Appellants also appealed. The Supreme Court consolidated the appeals and (1) affirmed the district court's denial of Appellants' request to interview in the judicial review proceedings; and (2) dismissed Appellants' appeal of the final order of the district court for lack of standing because of Appellants' status as nonparties. View "Hirshberg v. Coon" on Justia Law