Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant Chad Mebane was convicted of possession of methamphetamine and two counts of delivery of methamphetamine. Mebane appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by failing to advise him before he testified that he had a right not to testify and, as a result, his choice to testify was not made intelligently. Mebane appealed, contending that the trial court erred in failing to advise him at the close of the State's case that he did not have to testify. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Mebane was adequately advised by the trial court at arraignment of his right to remain silent; and (2) Mebane voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his right to remain silent. View "Mebane v. State" on Justia Law

This was the second of two related lawsuits filed by Torrington Livestock Cattle Company (TLCC) against Daren and Jennifer Berg. In the first suit, Daren was found liable for breach of contract, conversion, and fraud. The court entered judgment in the favor of TLCC in the amount of $517,635, but the judgment remained unsatisfied. While the first suit was pending, the Bergs signed a promissory note with the First Bank of Torrington. As collateral, the bank acquired security interests in a variety of the Bergs' property, including livestock and ranching equipment. Later, the bank assigned the promissory note to TLCC. After the Bergs did not make the first payment, TLCC commenced the instant action, alleging breach of contract for promissory note and to enforce security agreement. The district court determined that no material issues of fact existed and TLCC was entitled to summary judgment. The Supreme Court summarily affirmed the judgment of the trial court based upon the deficient brief offered by the Bergs and their failure to follow the rules of appellate procedure. View "Berg v. Torrington Livestock Cattle Co." on Justia Law

Joseph Dax faced state and federal criminal charges arising from a burglary that involved theft of firearms. After the federal court imposed sentence, Dax was transferred to state custody. Thereafter the state imposed sentence. Dax requested credit for time served, which the district court denied. Dax later filed a pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence, requesting credit for time served and claiming that he should receive credit against his state sentence for time spent in pre-trial detention on his federal charge. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that res judicata barred review of the issue because Dax did not take advantage of the opportunity to raise it multiple times before. View "Dax v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant Jimmy Dean Smallfoot entered a conditional guilty plea to a charge of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance. Smallfoot reserved the right to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to suppress the marijuana discovered inside his residence. On appeal, Smallfoot claimed the drug evidence should have been suppressed because it was the fruit of a constitutionally infirm warrantless entry into his home. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's suppression ruling, holding that the court correctly determined that the officers' warrantless entry into Smallfoot's residence pursuant to the consent of another alleged resident of the home was constitutionally permissible. View "Smallfoot v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant Michael Beall received preauthorization from the Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division for an orchiectomy, a procedure to remove his left testicle, which he claimed was related to a workplace injury. Beall's employer, Sky Blue Enterprises, objected to the preauthorization and the matter was referred to the Medical Commission Hearing Panel for a contested case hearing. Beall elected to undergo the surgery prior to the scheduled hearing. The Commission denied Beall's claim for reimbursement of medical expenses on the basis that the surgery was not reasonable or necessary medical care resulting from his workplace injury. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the burden of proving that the orchiectomy was reasonable and necessary medical care as related to Beall's alleged workplace injury rested with Beall; and (2) substantial evidence supported the Commission's determination that Beall failed to meet this burden. View "Beall v. Sky Blue Enters., Inc." on Justia Law

Following a jury trial, Appellant Lawrence Silva was convicted for aggravated burglary and attempt to commit kidnapping. The district court sentenced Appellant to imprisonment for twelve to fifteen years on each count to be served concurrent. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding (1) the district court did not err by preventing Appellant from introducing certain evidence of the victim's previous sexual conduct, as the evidence was irrelevant to Appellant's defense; and (2) the district court properly declined to instruct the jury on the offense of false imprisonment as a lesser-included offense of kidnapping because the lesser-included offense required an element not required for the higher felony offense. View "Silva v. State" on Justia Law

Gary James was convicted of two counts of aggravated assault and battery and two counts of driving under the influence with serious bodily injury. The district court imposed four consecutive terms of eight to ten years of incarceration. James appealed, contending that the convictions should have merged to two convictions for sentencing purposes because the consecutive sentences violated his constitutional right against multiple punishments for the same offense. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because James committed two separate and distinct criminal acts against each of two victims, the district court appropriately imposed consecutive sentences for those separate offenses. View "James v. State" on Justia Law

Majorie Bedessem, as trustee of her revocable trust, filed a complaint against David and Susan Cunningham, seeking enforcement of an easement across the Cunningham property to access the Bedessem property. Bedessem claimed an implied access easement or, in the alternative, access pursuant to the restrictive covenants applicable to both properties. The district court granting Cunninghams' summary judgment motion after finding no evidence of an implied easement and that the restrictive covenants authorized only the Architectural Control Committee to sue for enforcement of the covenants. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err when it ruled that Bedessem did not have standing to enforce a restrictive covenant against Cunninghams, as the covenants granted the Architectural Control Committee the sole right to enforce the covenants. View "Bedessem v. Cunningham " on Justia Law

Appellant received a sentence of twenty to twenty-two years imprisonment for a crime punishable by a term of twenty years to life. More than four years after starting his sentence, Appellant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, alleging that his sentenced violated Wyo. Stat. Ann. 7-13-201 because the minimum term was greater than ninety percent of the maximum term. Rather than decrease the minimum term below the statutory minimum, the district court increased the maximum term from 265 months to 267 months. Appellant appealed, arguing that increasing his sentence after he had begun to serve that sentence violated double jeopardy. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant's original sentence was illegal because it violated the statutory requirement that a minimum term may not be more than ninety percent of the maximum term; (2) the district court correctly increased the maximum term; but (3) the corrected sentence should have reflected the appropriate credit for the time appellant had served. Remanded. View "Moronese v. State" on Justia Law

Brady Michaels was arrested for driving while under the influence of alcohol. The Department of Transportation (the State) notified him that it was suspending his driver's license for ninety days. The Office of administrative Hearings (OAH) upheld the suspension. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order upholding the license suspension, holding (1) the OAH's ruling that Wyo. Stat. Ann. 31-5-233(b) (the statute) does not distinguish between alcohol concentration caused by consuming alcoholic beverages and alcohol concentration caused by some other factor was incorrect, as the statute was intended to apply when a person drives or is in actual control of a motor vehicle after consuming alcohol beyond the legal limit or to a degree rendering him incapable of safely driving; but (2) the State met its burden of proving that probable cause existed at the time of the arrest to believe that Michaels had violated the statute. View "Michaels v. State ex rel. Dep't of Transp. " on Justia Law