Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After conducting a compliance examination of CalCon Mutual Mortgage Corporation (“CalCon”) the Wyoming Department of Audit, Division of Banking (“Division”) determined that CalCon had violated the Wyoming Residential Mortgage Practices Act in six separate brokering transactions by receiving application fees and “yield spread premiums” exceeding those previously disclosed to its customers. The Division requested that CalCon refund the application fees and yield spread premiums to the borrowers. CalCon objected and requested a contesting case hearing before the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”). The OAH determined that CalCon had violated the Act. The State Banking Commissioner subsequently issued a final order directing CalCon to reimburse the fees. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Commissioner properly interpreted Wyo. Stat. Ann. 40-23-114 in determining that CalCon was required to provide a written explanation of increased application fees and yield spread premiums in the transactions at issue. View "Calcon Mut. Mortgage Corp. v. State ex rel. Wyo. Dep’t of Audit, Div. of Banking" on Justia Law

Defendant entered into a conditional plea agreement pursuant to which he pled guilty to interference with a peace officer and reserved the right to appeal three issues. The district court affirmed the circuit court’s rulings on those three issues. The Supreme Court reversed after addressing only one issue that was not addressed by either party, holding (1) because one of the three issues included in Defendant’s conditional plea was not a valid pretrial motion and was therefore not reviewable in a conditional plea appeal, the entire plea was invalid; and (2) therefore, Defendant should be allowed to withdraw his conditional guilty plea. Remanded.View "Matthews v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant, an inmate at the Wyoming State Penitentiary, was convicted of two counts of conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance and two counts of conspiracy to take a controlled substance into a state penal institution. The Supreme affirmed the convictions, holding (1) there was no violation of Defendant’s right to a speedy trial, where the time between Defendant’s arraignment and trial was 201 days, as the delay was part of the due administration of justice and thus did not violate Wyo. R. Crim. P. 48; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Appellant’s motion to continue.View "Vargas v. State" on Justia Law

Since 1991, Plaintiffs accessed their parcel of land by traveling over Defendants’ property pursuant to an easement for a road right of way. When Defendants obstructed Plaintiffs’ use of their easement, Plaintiffs filed an action for a declaratory judgment determining the parties’ rights and duties under the easement and a permanent injunction restraining Defendants from interfering with their use of the easement. After a trial, the district court ordered Defendants to remove obstructions from the easement. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion for order to show cause, asserting that Defendants should be held in contempt of court for violating the prior judgment by failing to remove the obstructions. The district court found Defendants in contempt of court after a hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the district court (1) acted within its discretion in holding Defendants in civil contempt; but (2) erred when it ordered Defendants to pay a penalty of $100 per day to the court until the obstructions were removed. View "Meckem v. Carter" on Justia Law

In 2012, Father filed a motion for order to show cause why Mother should not be held in contempt for refusing to comply with the visitation and communication provisions of the parties’ 2004 decree regarding custody of the parties’ two daughters. After a hearing, the district court found Mother in contempt of court and sanctioned her by (1) expanding Father’s visitation, (2) requiring Mother to pay for the children’s plane tickets for a winter break and spring break, (3) requiring Mother to post a bond if she did not fulfill the remedial portions of the order regarding visitation, and (4) directing Mother to pay Father’s attorney fees and the guardian ad litem fees. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding Mother in indirect civil contempt of court; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the remedial sanctions; and (3) Father was not entitled to sanctions against Mother and her appellate counsel. View "Shindell v. Shindell" on Justia Law

In 2011, Appellant was arrested and charged with three crimes. Appellant was on probation for crimes he had committed in 2008 at the time of his arrest, and the State also sought to revoke Appellant’s probation. Appellant and the State entered into a plea agreement, which was never reduced to writing. The district court subsequently sentenced Appellant and revoked his probation. Appellant filed a motion to correct illegal sentence and/or motion for sentence reduction, contending that the sentence imposed was not in accordance with his plea agreement and seeking modification of the sentence to conform to the terms of the plea agreement. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for imposition of an amended sentence, holding that the sentence imposed was not in accord with the plea agreement and was an illegal sentence because it could not be completed in a single stretch or without interruption by another prison sentence.View "Coy v. State" on Justia Law

In 1993, Appellant pled guilty to a second degree sexual assault crime in New Jersey. Appellant later moved to Wyoming. In 2012, the State charged Appellant with failing to register in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. 7-19-302(j) and 7-19-307(a)(d). After a trial, Appellant was convicted of the charge. Appellant appealed, contending that Wyoming’s Sex Offender Registration Act violates the prohibitions against ex post facto laws contained in the state and federal Constitutions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Act does not violate the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution because the Act imposes only a regulatory burden on convicted sex offenders; and (2) there was no merit in Appellant’s claim that the Wyoming Constitution provides greater protection against ex post facto laws than its federal counterpart.View "Kammerer v. State" on Justia Law

In February 2011, two years and four months after Plaintiff learned she had been disinherited by her mother, Plaintiff filed a complaint against financial advisor Bradley Lott for fraud and constructive fraud. A jury found that Lott had committed constructive fraud but that Plaintiff knew or should have known before February 2007 that the fraud occurred. Based on the jury’s findings, the district court dismissed the action, concluding that Plaintiff’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment, holding (1) the evidence did not support a finding that Plaintiff could have discovered the fraud sooner, and (2) therefore, the district court erred by dismissing the case based on the statute of limitations. Remanded for a new trial.View "Erdelyi v. Lott" on Justia Law

In 2005, Defendant was arrested and charged with two counts of third-degree sexual assault. In a separate docket, Defendant was charged with two counts of forgery. Defendant pled guilty to the forgery counts and no contest to the sexual assault charges. In 2007, the district court sentenced Defendant and credited him for time served awaiting sentencing. Defendant was released from prison in 2011 but was arrested for probation violation in 2012 in Arkansas. After Defendant was transferred to Wyoming, the district court revoked his probation and imposed the second sexual assault sentence. The court also credited Defendant with time served while awaiting his hearing. Defendant later filed a pro se motion to correct illegal sentence, claiming that he was entitled to a total of 426 days credit for time served. The district court granted the motion in part, awarding him a total of 379 days credit for time served. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly credited Defendant an additional 169 days for time served.View "Tallerdy v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of driving with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of at least 0.08% for a fourth or subsequent time in ten years, a felony. On appeal, Appellant argued that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress the results of his BAC test, claiming that the affidavit supporting the search warrant authorizing his blood to be taken for testing was deficient because it failed to demonstrate probable cause. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the search warrant affidavit did not provide sufficient information for a judicial officer to make an independent judgment that there was probable cause to issue the warrant, and therefore, the BAC test - the fruit of the search - should have been suppressed. View "Snell v. State" on Justia Law