Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant pleaded guilty to larceny by bailee and two counts of false statement to obtain title. Defendant appealed, arguing (1) the district court erred in denying his motion to amend judgment and sentence in the larceny charge; (2) the district court erred in denying his motions to amend the captions in both criminal matters; and (3) with regard to his larceny by bailee charge, he was sentenced under a criminal statute that was repealed during the pendency of his proceedings. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Defendant failed to timely file a direct appeal to the Court. View "Manzanares v. State" on Justia Law

In 2012, the parties divorced. The original divorce decree provided for joint legal and physical custody of the parties’ three children. In 2013, Father field a petition to modify custody, visitation and support. The district court granted Father sole custody, modified the visitation schedule, and required Mother to pay child support in an amount less than the statutory presumptive amount. The district court also awarded expenses under Wyo. R. Civ. P. 37 incurred by Mother’s pro bono attorney and denied Father’s Wyo. R. Civ. P. 11 motion for sanctions against Mother for seeking attorney’s fees and expenses for discovery violations. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it (1) deviated from Mother’s presumptive child support obligation; (2) authorized the award of expenses under Rule 37 that were not incurred by Mother; and (3) denied Father’s Rule 11 motion for sanctions. View "Windham v. Windham" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of felony possession of marijuana. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction for felony possession, holding (1) the evidence was insufficient to support Appellant’s conviction because, assuming a jury could reasonably find that Defendant could have controlled the marijuana, the State failed to show that Defendant had the intent and power to exercise dominion and control over the drugs; but (2) the evidence was sufficient to support the lesser included offense of misdemeanor possession of marijuana. Remanded for resentencing on that offense. View "Regan v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of child abuse and third-degree sexual assault of a minor under Wyo. Stat. Ann. 6-2-503(b)(i) and Wyo. Stat. Ann. 6-2-316(a)(iv). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant was not denied his right to a speedy trial under Wyo. R. Crim. P. 48 and under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution; (2) the State presented sufficient evidence to sustain Appellant’s conviction of sexual abuse of a minor in the third degree; and (3) Appellant was not deprived of the effective assistance of trial counsel. View "Rhodes v. State" on Justia Law

Gregory and Debra Lavitt and Harry Stephens owned mountain property near one another. Stephens commenced a declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling that he held a valid easement across the Lavitts’ property. The district court determined that Stephens held a valid easement. When Stephens violated the conditions imposed on his use of the easement, the district court terminated the easement. Stephens then filed a complaint in district court requesting that the court condemn a private road allowing access to his land-locked property. Stephens proposed a route traversing the portion of the Lavitts’ property where his former easement lay. The district court concluded that Stephens had created his own lack of access, precluding him from seeking a road across the Lavitts’ property. The court declined to award sanctions against Stephens or his attorney and also denied the Lavitts’ motion requesting attorney’s fees. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion (1) when it denied the Lavitts’ motion for costs and attorney’s fees pursuant to Wyo. R. Civ. P. 41(d), as such an award was not available in this case; and (2) in deciding not to impose sanctions against Stephens and his attorney pursuant to Wyo. R. Civ. P. 11, as Stephens’ complaint was not frivolous. View "Lavitt v. Stephens" on Justia Law

Appellant pled guilty to one count of burglary and was placed on probation. As part of his probation, Appellant was required to complete a community corrections program and a residential treatment program. Appellant was confined in such a facility for a total of 187 days. After Appellant’s probation was revoked, the district court imposed the underlying sentence, but Appellant was not credited for the time he spent in the community corrections facility. Appellant later field a motion to correct illegal sentence seeking credit for the 187 days he spent in the community corrections facility. The district court ruled that Appellant was not entitled to credit for time spent in the community corrections facility. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Appellant was entitled to 187 days of credit for time served in the community corrections facility. View "Nunes v. State" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a California court order, Father had sole legal and physical custody of the parties’ child, subject to limited visitation by Mother. Mother filed a petition for modification of the California order seeking modification of the custody, child support, visitation, and bond provisions. The district court denied Mother’s modification motion, ruling that Mother was required to establish a material change of circumstances in order to warrant a change in custody or visitation but that Mother did not meet that burden. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the district court (1) erred by failing to give full faith and credit to the terms of the California order, which specifically allowed a change in the terms of visitation when it would be in the child’s best interests; but (2) did not err in concluding that there was no material change in circumstances that would justify a change in custody. Remanded so the district court could conduct a best interests analysis to determine if modification of the visitation provisions of the California order was warranted. View "Gjertsen v. Ter Haar" on Justia Law

Sandra Greenmeyer and Jacob Greenmeyer divorced in 1994. The divorce decree awarded Sandra a portion of Jacob’s railroad retirement benefits. Jacob retired in 2009 and began receiving his retirement benefits. In 2013, Sandra began receiving retirement benefits. In 2014, Sandra filed a motion seeking an order requiring Jacob to pay to her the retirement benefits awarded in the divorce decree that he had been receiving. The district court granted the motion and ordered Jacob to pay Sandra a total of $33,320. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court’s order did not conflict with the Railroad Retirement Board’s regulations; and (2) because the divorce decree awarded certain retirement benefits to Sandra, she was entitled to recover her property from Jacob. View "Greenmeyer v. Greenmeyer" on Justia Law

Mother and Father were married in 2004, and three children were born to the couple. In 2012, Father filed a complaint seeking a divorce. After a trial in 2014, the district court granted primary custody to Father and visitation to Mother. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in (1) awarding primary physical custody to Father; (2) requiring the parties to split the children’s medical costs not covered by health insurance; and (3) modifying its original findings of fact and conclusions of law by reducing Mother’s visitation below the forty percent statutory threshold. View "Walter v. Walter" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant, her former employer, alleging harassment, emotional stress, personal injury, loss of income, and age discrimination. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court correctly dismissed Plaintiff’s discrimination and harassment claims where she not only failed to allege timely satisfaction of the statutory jurisdictional conditions precedent but failed to timely comply with the jurisdictional conditions precedent; and (2) the district court properly dismissed Plaintiff’s state law tort claims. View "Apodaca v. Safeway, Inc." on Justia Law