Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After Mother’s youngest two children were placed in the legal custody of Wyoming’s Department of Family Services (Department), Mother was convicted of assault and battery and incarcerated. The Department subsequently filed a petition for termination of parental rights against Mother. Mother failed to timely answer, plead, or otherwise defend, and the clerk of court entered default against Mother. Mother filed a motion to set aside the default. The district court denied the motion, concluding that Mother failed to establish good cause to set aside the default. After a default hearing on termination of Mother’s parental rights, the district court found that clear and convincing evidence established that Mother’s parental rights to the children should be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Court had appellate jurisdiction to consider the substantive issues raised by Mother; (2) the district court did not err as a matter of law in denying Mother’s motion to set aside the entry of default; and (3) the Department presented sufficient evidence to support termination of Mother’s parental rights to the two children. View "CLB v. State, Dep’t of Family Servs." on Justia Law

Defendant entered a plea of no contest to one count of delivery of methamphetamine. In 2011, the district court revoked Defendant’s probation and entered judgment on her no contest plea. The court sentenced Defendant to a term of years in prison but suspended the sentence and placed her on supervised probation. Defendant’s probation was set to expire in February 2014, but in January 2014, a probation agent filed a petition to extend her probationary term to August 2015. Defendant filed a document agreeing to the extension but was not represented by counsel. The district court subsequently entered an order extending probation. In February 2015, the State petitioned to revoke Defendant’s probation. Defendant argued that the probation extension had not been handled properly and if the probation extension had not been entered, Defendant’s probation would have expired prior to the February 2015 revocation hearing. The district court ruled that Defendant did not have the right to counsel during her probation extension proceeding. The court then revoked Defendant’s probation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant’s challenge to the probation extension entered more than one year before her probation was revoked was time barred. View "Poignee v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to misdemeanor breach of peace and misdemeanor interference with a peace officer. Two days later, the State filed an information charging Defendant with felony interference with a peace officer arising out of the same events as those underlying his misdemeanors convictions. Defendant entered an unconditional plea of no contest to a reduced charge of misdemeanor interference. Defendant appealed, arguing that his second misdemeanor conviction violated his double jeopardy protections. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant did not waive his double jeopardy claim; and (2) because Defendant committed two separate acts of interference, one inside his home and one outside his home, Defendant could lawfully be prosecuted for each separate offense. View "Redding v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated assault and battery. Defendant appealed, arguing that the prosecutor committed prosecutorial misconduct by incorrectly instructing the jury regarding the presumption of innocence and by attempting to define “reasonable doubt” to the jury in his closing argument. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the prosecutor violated a clear and unequivocal rule of law when he made an incorrect statement regarding the presumption of innocence; (2) the prosecutor transgressed a clear and unequivocal rule of law when he defined reasonable doubt for the jury in his closing argument; but (3) while Defendant established that the prosecutor committed two errors that transgressed clear and unequivocal rules of law, the cumulative effect of these errors was not prejudicial. View "Watts v. State" on Justia Law

After just more than three years of marriage, Wife sued Husband for divorce. Wife subsequently filed a motion to amend her complaint to add a cause of action for promissory estoppel. The district court denied the motion, concluding that justice did not require leave to amend the complaint. The district court then distributed the couple’s property and property-related obligations to the party who brought it into the marriage. If an asset was purchased during the marriage, the court awarded it to the party whose assets were used to purchase it. The court awarded Wife an additional $45,000 equalization payment. Wife appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Wife’s motion for leave to amend; and (2) the district court’s distribution of the couple’s property was not an abuse of discretion. View "Dane v. Dane" on Justia Law

When Child was approximately one year old, Mother left Child in the care of Aunt, Mother’s sister. Aunt was appointed temporary guardian of Child. Aunt then filed a petition for permanent guardianship. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied the motion, ruling that Aunt failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Mother and Father were unfit as parents. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court applied the correct burden of proof in evaluating whether Aunt had proven that Mother and Father were unfit; and (2) the district court’s finding that Aunt did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Mother and Father was no clearly erroneous, inconsistent with the evidence, or contrary to the great weight of the evidence. View "Eshleman v. Rosenberg" on Justia Law

Pennaco Energy Inc. acquired mineral leases beneath a surface estate owned by Brett Sorenson, Trustee of the Brett L. Sorenson Trust. A surface damage and use agreement between the parties granted Pennaco access to and use of the land for exploration and production of minerals, and, in return, required Pennaco to pay for the damage to and use of the surface estate, and to reclaim the land once operations ended. When Pennaco refused to perform its obligations under the contract, Soreson brought this lawsuit. The jury rendered a verdict finding that Sorenson suffered more than $1 million in damages. The district court entered judgment on the jury’s verdict and also awarded Sorenson costs and attorney fees. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err by (1) ruling that Pennaco remained liable under the surface damage and use agreement after assignment, and (2) using a 2.5 multiplier to enhance the lodestar amount in awarding attorney fees. View "Pennaco Energy, Inc. v. Sorenson" on Justia Law

After Father and Mother separated, the parties’ child lived with Mother. Father later filed a petition to establish paternity and visitation, and, eventually, regular visitation between Father and the child was established. Father subsequently amended his petition to seek custody of the child. After a trial, the district court granted custody of the child to Father, subject to Mother’s visitation rights. Mother appealed, asserting that the district court abused its discretion when it refused to allow the child’s therapist to give opinion testimony at the custody hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the therapist’s opinion testimony because Mother did not comply with her discovery obligations. View "JN v. RFSG" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with felony interference with a peace officer. Ultimately, the case was submitted to the jury. The jury deliberated for approximately four hours before it informed the district court that it was deadlocked. After discussion with counsel, the district court gave the jury a supplemental instruction asking the jurors to continue their deliberations. Less than one hour later, the jury returned a guilty verdict. Defendant appealed, arguing that the court’s supplemental instruction improperly coerced the jury and that his attorney provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to the instruction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the supplemental instruction was not unduly coercive; and (2) defense counsel’s failure to object to the jury instruction did not constitute deficient performance. View "Carter v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to manslaughter and aggravated burglary. Defendant was sentenced to twelve to eighteen years for the manslaughter conviction and eight to ten years for the aggravated battery, to run concurrently, with a recommendation for the Youthful Offender Program (boot camp). After Defendant completed boot camp he moved for a sentence reduction to probation. The district court denied the motion but reduced Defendant’s sentence by two years. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) following the successful completion of boot camp the sentencing court has discretion to reduce the sentence of an applicant upon completion of boot camp, and that discretion allows a reduction in sentence that could include probation but could also include other possibilities; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it considered the nature of Defendant’s underlying crimes in Defendant’s motion for sentence reduction; and (3) the prosecutor did not violate the terms of the plea agreement when he argued against probation after completion of boot camp. View "Mendoza v. State" on Justia Law