Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Mother's request for a jury trial in this termination of parental rights case, holding that the district court exercised sound judgment under the circumstances.The Department of Family Services brought an action to terminate Mother's parental rights to her son. Mother failed to make a timely demand for a jury trial pursuant to Wyo. R. Crim. P. 38 (Rule 38) and later requested that the district court grant a jury trial under Wyo. R. Crim. P. 39(b). The district court denied Mother's request and subsequently terminated her parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the order denying Mother's Rule 39 motion was not a final appealable order; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mother's request for a jury trial. View "Gipson v. State, ex rel. Dep't of Family Services" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction for two counts of forgery, holding that the district court plainly erred in accepting Defendant's guilty plea because it lacked a factual basis.Defendant was charged with two felony counts of forgery, in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. 6-3-602(a)(ii). Defendant pled guilty to both counts pursuant to a plea agreement. The district court found the plea voluntary, accepted the factual basis, and sentenced Defendant. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the district court violated a clear and unequivocal rule of law when it accepted Defendant’s guilty plea without having a sufficient factual basis to conclude that she committed forgery under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-3-602(a)(ii); and (2) Defendant suffered material prejudice when the district court sentenced her to a crime that the record did not reflect she committed. View "Delarosa v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the district court denying Wife's motion for relief filed under Wyo. R. Crim. P. 60(a) from a divorce decree entered in 2003, holding that the district court erred as a matter of law in denying Rule 60(a) motion.At issue was the provision in the parties' stipulated decree of divorce that granted Wife fifty percent of the marital portion of Husband's disposable retired pay under his military retirement plan and provided a formula to calculate the marital portion based on Husband's months of service. In her Rule 60(a) motion, Wife argued that the formula's use of the word "months" rather than the term "reserve points" prevented her from collecting her share of Husband's military retired pay. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed the district court's denial of Wife's motion for relief, holding that the decree's use of "months" instead of "reserve points" was a clerical mistake requiring correction. View "Stone v. Stone" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court granting the petition brought by the Wyoming Department of Family Services (DFS) to terminate the parental rights of Mother to her child, holding that Mother was not entitled to relief on her claims of error.After a hearing, the district court held that the Department of Family Services (DFS) had presented clear and convincing evidence that Mother's parental rights to her child should be terminated under Wyo. Stat. Ann. 14-2-309(a)(iii) and (a)(v). The court further held that termination would be in the child's best interest. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the record supported the district court's holding that DFS made reasonable but unsuccessful efforts to rehabilitate and reunify Mother and her child under Wyo. Stat. Ann. 14-2-309(a)(iii). View "Alcorn v. State ex rel. Dep't of Family Services" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Felix Felicis, LLC's (Felix) application to vacate an arbitrator award in favor of Riva Ridge Owners Association (RROA) in this dispute over annual assessments, holding that the district court did not err in denying the application.This litigation arose after RROA's site committee rejected Felix's plans to build a home on its tract in the Riva Ridge subdivision. The attorney fees and costs RROA incurred during the litigation RROA ratably levied upon all tract owners in the subdivision via annual assessments. Felix refused to pay a portion of them based on its belief that RROA was not authorized by the restrictive covenants to assess attorney fees and costs against the tract owners. Felix later submitted its dispute with RROA to binding arbitration. The arbitrator granted summary judgment for RROA and awarded it a total of $334,890. Felix moved to vacate the arbitration award on the grounds that the arbitrator exceeded his powers by failing to consider Felix's affirmative defenses. The district court denied the application. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Felix failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that the arbitrator made a manifest mistake of the law in granting summary judgment for RROA. View "Felix Felicis, LLC v. Riva Ridge Owners Ass'n" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court concluding that Plaintiffs did not adversely possess their northern neighbors deeded property in the Bighorn Mountains because their use was presumptively permissive, holding that the district court did not clearly err.Plaintiffs' fancy had enclosed portions of Defendant's deeded property within Plaintiffs' property since the 1950s. Plaintiffs brought this suit requesting that the district court quiet title in the disputed lands. The district court concluded that the fence was built for convenience, and therefore, Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of actual notice to Defendant of their hostile use of the land. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision quieting title in Defendant and ejecting Plaintiffs from the property, holding that Plaintiffs were not entitled to relief on their allegations of error. View "Lyman v. Childs" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part the order of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of Ghidorzi Construction Company, LLC and dismissing the complaint brought by Primrose Retirement Communities, LLC and Gillette Retirement, LLC its local affiliate (together, Primrose), holding that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on Primrose's breach of contract claim.Primrose filed a complaint against Ghidorzi alleging negligence, breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Ghidorzi following a hearing. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) there were material questions of fact precluding summary judgment on the interpretation of the contract and whether Ghidorzi's actions contributed to Primrose's damages; and (2) the district court properly concluded that the contract language obviated any need to impose an implied covenant. View "Primrose Retirement Communities, LLC v. Ghidorzi Construction Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of committing aggravated child abuse against his son, KH, and child abuse against his stepson, LT, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting LT's out of court statement as a prior consistent statement under Wyo. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(B).On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred by admitting LT's prior recorded interview statement because it constituted inadmissible hearsay and that three of the four requirements for admission of such a statement under Rule 801(d)(1)(B) were not satisfied. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court could reasonably conclude that all four requirements were satisfied and thus did not abuse its discretion in admitting LT's out of court statement. View "Hilyard v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of one count of first-degree sexual assault, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of sexual assault in the first degree and sentenced to imprisonment for less than ten nor more than fifteen years. On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial by partially closing the courtroom in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not violate Defendant's right to a public trial, and Defendant waived his right to a public trial; (2) Defendant waived any appellate argument regarding the admissibility of certain evidence; and (3) Defendant failed to prove that he was prejudiced by his trial counsel's alleged errors. View "Tarpey v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of taking a controlled substance into a jail, a felony, and misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance, holding that there was no error in the convictions but remand was required for the limited purpose of correcting the written judgment and sentence.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the evidence was sufficient for the jury to convict Defendant of voluntarily taking a controlled substance into a jail; (2) the evidence was sufficient for the jury to convict Defendant of knowingly possessing a controlled substance; and (3) this Court will not consider Defendant's constitutional claim because it was unpreserved and was not supported by relevant authority or cogent argument. View "Borja v. State" on Justia Law