Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Randall and Carmen Sinclair brought an action against the City of Gillette asserting three claims for relief, including a claim for damages under the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act. The Act provides broad governmental immunity from tort liability but also establishes a number of specified exceptions. The City asserted governmental immunity and moved to dismiss that claim. The district court granted the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order dismissing the claim, holding that the court did not err in finding the Sinclairs' claim was not cognizable under the exception to immunity specified in the Act that allows claims for public employees' negligence while acting within the scope of their duties in the operation of public utilities and services because, in this case, the City's negligence was unrelated to the operation of the storm drain. View "Sinclair v. City of Gillette" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant Carl Peterson was convicted of second degree sexual abuse of a minor and soliciting a minor to engage in sexual relations. Peterson appealed, raising multiple allegations of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding (1) Peterson failed to demonstrate that counsel's investigation and evaluation of a witness's likely testimony was flawed and outside the realm of professionally competent assistance; (2) Peterson failed to show that counsel was ineffective at the victim's competency hearing; (3) trial counsel was not ineffective in his cross-examination of the victim; and (4) counsel was not ineffective in his questioning of jurors during the voir dire process. View "Peterson v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant Wyatt Bear Cloud and two co-defendants were involved in an armed burglary of a residence in which one of Bear Cloud's co-defendants shot and killed one of the home's residents. Bear Cloud, who was sixteen years old at the time of the offenses, ultimately pleaded guilty to felony-murder, conspiracy to commit aggravated burglary, and aggravated burglary. Bear Cloud was sentenced to life imprisonment for his conviction for felony-murder. The Supreme Court affirmed Bear Cloud's convictions and sentences in their entireties, holding, inter alia, (1) Appellant's trial counsel was not ineffective in her representation of Bear Cloud; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to transfer proceedings to juvenile court; (3) a life sentence for a juvenile who did not commit homicide does not violate the Eighth Amendment of the federal constitution or Wyo. Const. art. I, 14; and (4) Wyo. Stat. Ann. 6-2-101(b) is not rendered unconstitutional by its mandatory sentencing structure, even as applied to a juvenile offender, and particularly in light of the district court's ability to consider mitigating circumstances when considering whether to transfer proceedings to juvenile court. View "Bear Cloud v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of first-degree sexual assault and robbery. After losing his appeal, Appellant filed a verified petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that his appellate counsel was ineffective. The district court granted the State's motion to dismiss, concluding that Appellant's claim was procedurally barred pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. 7-14-103(a)(iii) because he raised a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel in his direct appeal, which was decided on the merits. The Supreme Court likewise dismissed the petition, holding (1) where a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel has been raised and decided against the appellant in his direct appeal, he may not raise a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, based upon different allegations, in a petition for post-conviction relief, as the claim is procedurally barred by section 7-14-103(a)(iii); and (2) a stand-alone claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is not cognizable under the post-conviction relief statutes because post-conviction relief is limited to the alleged denial of constitutional rights during the proceedings that resulted in conviction. View "Schreibvogel v. State " on Justia Law

A police officer was presented with an emergency situation when, upon entering Appellant Joseph Owens' motel room, he found Appellant convulsing on the floor. The officer subsequently searched Appellant's backpack and the containers found therein in an attempt to aid Appellant and discovered methamphetamine. Appellant subsequently entered a conditional guilty plea to felony possession of methamphetamine. Owens reserved the right to appeal the constitutionality of the search that resulted in discovery of the methamphetamine. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that under the circumstances presented, the State satisfied its burden of establishing specific and articulable facts showing that the search was justified pursuant to the officer's community caretaker function. View "Owens v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant Derrick Brock, the assistant manager at a restaurant, failed to deposit the restaurant's previous two day earnings at the bank, and afterwards, never returned to work. Following a jury trial, Appellant Derrick Brock was convicted of larceny by bailee. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to call investigating officers to testify regarding their investigation; (2) trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to investigate or interview or call key witnesses with possibly exculpatory information; and (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sustaining the prosecution's objection to cross-examination of a witness regarding statements made to the police. View "Brock v. State" on Justia Law

Rebecca Fulmer suffered injuries on two separate dates while working as a nursing assistant at Shepherd of the Valley Care Center. Fulmer submitted worker's compensation claims for both injuries, and the Workers' Safety and Compensation Division denied benefits for the two injuries. The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) upheld the denial of benefits, concluding that Fulmer was not entitled to benefits (1) for her first injury because it was the result of Fulmer's own culpable negligence, and (2) for her second injury because it was caused not by her work but by normal activities of day-to-day living. The district court reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court and held that Fulmer was entitled to benefits for both of her injuries where Shepherd did not meet its burden of proving (1) Fulmer's actions were willful and serious misconduct that constituted culpable negligence with her first injury, and (2) a normal activity of day-to-day living caused Fulmer's hip fracture. Remanded. View "Shepherd of the Valley Care Ctr. v. Fulmer" on Justia Law

Appellant, Andy Lovato, entered a conditional guilty plea to one count of possession of methamphetamine. Appellant appealed, claiming the district court incorrectly concluded that his right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures was not violated when he was seized by the police. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err when it denied Appellant's motion to suppress evidence because the police had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity justifying briefly detaining Appellant for further investigation; and (2) the police had probable cause to arrest Appellant for interference when a peace officer after he failed to obey one officer's commands to stop and then struggled with the police officers. View "Lovato v. State" on Justia Law

This case began in 2004 when Margo Belden and Fish Creek Designs, LLC filed suit against John Thorkildsen, claiming a breach of the LLC agreement and that Thorkildsen and his wife owned Fish Creek for payments it made on a loan. The case was appealed and remanded several times, largely in relation to Thorkildsen's motion for attorney fees and costs. In the fourth appeal of this matter, the Supreme Court took the unusual step of making a factual determination that the attorney fees Thorkildsen requested were reasonable and, in a specific remand, directed the district court to enter an order awarding Thorkildsen attorney fees in the amount of $77,475. In the fifth appeal of the matter, Thorkildsen challenged the district court's entry of the order the Court directed, claiming he was entitled to prejudgment interest on the fee award. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the award of Thorkildsen's attorney fees was not a liquidated claim, and therefore, Thorkildsen was not entitled to prejudgment interest on the award. View "Thorkildsen v. Belden" on Justia Law

Appellant Timothy Shaeffer was convicted of aggravated assault and battery after he waved around a flare gun during an altercation at a bar. On appeal, Appellant claimed he was subject to numerous errors, which affected his right to a fair trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to appoint Appellant new counsel on the second day of trial; (2) the trial court did not violate Appellant's right to self-representation, as Appellant never made an unequivocal request to represent himself; (3) the trial court did not require Appellant to wear excessive physical restraints, and the trial court's failure to not instruct the jury regarding the shackles did not constitute plain error; (4) after Appellant had been deemed competent to proceed, the circumstances at trial were not such that would have required an additional competency evaluation; (5) the trial court did not exhibit judicial bias against Appellant; and (6) the State did not provide the trial court with inappropriate or incorrect information at the sentencing hearing. View "Schaeffer v. State" on Justia Law