Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charge of conspiracy to deliver methamphetamine. After the district court accepted the plea and scheduled a sentencing hearing, Appellant retained new counsel, who filed a motion to withdraw the plea. In support of the motion, counsel asserted, among other things, that a fair and just reason existed for allowing the withdrawal because Appellant asserted his innocence. The district court denied the motion after a hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court reasonably concluded that Appellant's assertion of innocence did not constitute a fair and just reason for allowing him to withdraw his plea. View "Russell v. State" on Justia Law

Wife filed a complaint for divorce from Husband, and the matter proceeded to trial. Neither party, however, timely requested the official court reporter to report and transcribe the proceeding as prescribed by Rule 904 of the Uniform Rules for District Courts. The official court reporter was consequently unavailable for trial, and the district court would not permit any resulting transcript prepared by an unofficial court reporter to be considered an official transcript. The trial was held without a court reporter present, and a divorce decree issued. Wife challenged the divorce decree on appeal, arguing that the district court erred by refusing to allow the trial proceedings to be transcribed by an unofficial court reporter. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court abused its discretion in refusing to allow Wife to use a substitute reporter to transcribe the proceedings and prepare an official transcript; but (2) Wife was not prejudiced by the ruling. View "Bredthauer v. Bredthauer" on Justia Law

Appellant sustained a second to third-degree burn to his foot while working for Employer. Appellant's injury was found to be compensable. Appellant subsequently experienced foot pain and difficulty standing and wearing work boots and therefore applied for permanent total disability (PTD) benefits. After a contested case hearing, a panel of the Medical Commission concluded that Appellant did not meet his burden of proving entitlement to PTD benefits under the odd lot doctrine. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Commission reasonably concluded Appellant was not entitled to PTD benefits under the odd lot doctrine and did not otherwise err in its decision. View "McIntosh v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div." on Justia Law

Appellant pled guilty to conspiracy to deliver methamphetamine. The district court sentenced Appellant to fifteen to twenty years imprisonment and recommended that Appellant complete intensive treatment for substance abuse. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment and sentence. Appellant subsequently filed a timely motion for a sentence reduction, which was denied. Thereafter, Appellant filed a second motion seeking to modify his sentence. The district court denied the motion on the grounds of untimeliness. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant's appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Appellant's motion was not filed within the required one-year time period under the relevant statute. View "Gomez v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to three burglary charges and was sentenced to terms in prison, with the sentences being suspended in lieu of one year in jail and seven years supervised probation. One of the conditions of Defendant's probation was to complete an in-patient substance abuse treatment program. After Defendant completed the program and was on intensive supervised probation, the district court revoked Defendant's probation and reinstated his original sentence due to probation violations. The district court awarded credit for thirty-six days of pre-sentence confinement and for 365 days Defendant served in the county jail but denied Defendant's petition seeking credit for the time he spent in the treatment program or on probation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant credit for the time he spent on intensive supervised probation. View "Yearout v. State" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a divorce decree, the tribal court awarded Father, who lived in Wyoming, primary custody of the parties' child and liberal visitation to Mother, who lived in New Mexico. Father later filed a motion seeking clarification regarding which party was obligated for transportation costs relative to visitation. The district court clarified the decree by concluding that weekend visitation was at the expense of the visiting parent and the other visitation costs were shared by the parents. Mother appealed, contending that the district court's order improperly modified or otherwise improperly clarified the divorce decree. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, in its order granting Father's motion to clarify, the district court properly employed Wyo. R. Civ. P. 60(a) to clarify an ambiguity in the divorce decree and correctly clarified the decree according to the contemporaneous intent of the trial court. View "Tafoya v. Tafoya" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated vehicular homicide while driving under the influence of alcohol and two related DUI misdemeanors. On appeal, Defendant alleged, among other things, that her sentence was illegal because the district court entered separate convictions and sentences on the DUI counts, which were the same criminal act and charged in the alternative. The Supreme Court (1) reversed Defendant's conviction for aggravated vehicular homicide and remanded for a new trial because the district court erred in not allowing Defendant's expert witness to testify concerning her theory of defense to that charge; and (2) reversed the DUI convictions and remanded for entry of a new judgment and sentence convicting Defendant of one violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. 31-5-233 and imposing one sentence because the district court erred when it imposed sentences on both DUI counts under section 31-5-233(b). View "Stalcup v. State" on Justia Law

Appellants, two individuals, were arrested for driving while under the influence of alcohol (DWUI). Each appellant's blood-alcohol content was determined in accordance with the procedures set forth in Wyo. Stat. Ann. 31-6-102(d), which sets forth the procedure for remotely communicated search warrants in DWUI cases, in that the circuit court judge issued a remotely communicated search warrant after communicating via telephone with the arresting officer, who was under oath, and directed the officer to affix the judge's signature to the warrant. At issue before the Supreme Court was whether the requirements of section 31-6-102(2) are the equivalent of an affidavit under the State Constitution and whether the requirements of Wyo. R. Crim. P. 41(c), which provides the procedural requirements for the issuance of a search warrant, must be met. The Supreme Court answered certified questions of law by holding (1) the procedures set forth in section 31-6-102(d) do not violate the State Constitution; and (2) search warrants issued pursuant to section 31-6-102(d) must meet the requirements of Rule 41(c). View "Smith v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant entered an unconditional guilty plea to one count of incest for having sexual intercourse with his adult daughter. The district court sentenced Appellant to thirteen and a half to fifteen years imprisonment. Appellant appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment and sentence, holding (1) Appellant's guilty plea waived non-jurisdictional claims; (2) Appellant did not provide adequate grounds to support his claim of selective prosecution; (3) Appellant failed to establish that the district court relied on any allegedly inaccurate and improper information at sentencing; and (4) the remainder of Appellant's claims were without merit. View "Sisneros v. State" on Justia Law

Father and Mother divorced a decade after they married. Custody of the parties' three children was awarded to Wife. Father subsequently filed a petition seeking a modification awarding him custody of the children. The district court denied Father's petition on the basis that he had not demonstrated a material change in circumstances. The court also held Father in contempt for failing to comply with the divorce decree. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion in determining that there was no material change in circumstances; (2) did not deny Father's due process rights; (3) did not ignore the best interests of the children in this case; (4) did not ignore discrepancies in certain testimony; and (6) did not abuse its discretion in finding Father in contempt. View "Olsen v. Olsen" on Justia Law