Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of a single count of felony larceny. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding (1) any deficiency in Defendant's trial attorney's failure to challenge a certain juror for cause was not prejudicial, and therefore, counsel did not provide constitutionally ineffective assistance; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to grant Defendant's motion for a new trial based on the claim that another juror was mentally incompetent; and (3) Defendant could not prevail on his claim that the cumulative effect of the alleged errors warranted reversal of his conviction, as the doctrine did not apply in this case. View "Moore v. State" on Justia Law

Husband and Wife were married for seventeen years at the time they decided to divorce. After a trial, the district court (1) valued the total assets to be divided between the parties at approximately $4.5 million; (2) awarded Wife over $1 million and (3) awarded Husband approximately $3.4 million. Wife appealed arguing that the trial court inequitably divided the marital assets when it gave her only twenty-three percent of the total assets. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly assessed the facts and considered each of the required factors in making its determination and thus did not abuse its discretion in dividing the marital property. View "Kummerfeld v. Kummerfeld" on Justia Law

In KMO I, the district court terminated Mother's parental rights, and the Supreme Court affirmed. Mother's appointed attorney on appeal (Attorney) filed a fee motion requesting $121,530 in fees. The district court awarded attorney's fees in the amount of $25,000, concluding that it could not, "in good conscience," award attorney's fees in the amount Attorney requested. Attorney appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's fee reduction in this case, holding that Attorney provided no evidence demonstrating that the fee reduction was unreasonable, and the district court did not err in its assessment of the fee request. View "In re KMO" on Justia Law

While she was working as a nurse at a hospital, Appellant suffered a heart attack. The Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division denied Appellant's claim for benefits. The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) upheld the Division's denial of benefits, concluding that Appellant failed to prove her myocardial infarction was caused by exertion clearly unusual or abnormal to her position at the hospital. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the OAH did not err when it interpreted the statute governing coronary conditions to require that the causative exertion be unusual or abnormal for her position at the hospital rather than unusual or abnormal in the nursing profession generally. View "Fieseler v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div." on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of eleven counts of burglary. At his arraignment, Appellant peremptorily disqualified Judge Kalokathis and the case was assigned to a different judge. After Defendant was convicted, the case was again assigned to Judge Kalokathis for sentencing. Judge Kalokathis sentenced Appellant to a total of forty-four to eighty-eight years but later vacated Appellant's sentence because he had previously been disqualified. Judge Grant was assigned the case for resentencing and sentenced Appellant to a total of fifty-two to seventy-five years. Appellant's convictions were affirmed on appeal. Appellant later filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, asserting that Judge Grant improperly increased the original sentence in violation of his due process rights. The district court denied Appellant's due process claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant's claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata because Appellant failed to raise them in the direct appeal from his convictions; and (2) Appellant's sentence on resentencing did not violate his constitutional due process and double jeopardy protections. View "Ferguson v. State" on Justia Law