Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

In this case, a business owner discovered that his yard’s fence had been cut, a lock removed, and a distinctive skid steer tractor missing. Months later, a law enforcement officer familiar with the stolen tractor observed a similar machine at the defendant’s scrapyard. Upon inspection, the tractor showed signs of tampering, including a removed serial number plate, a recently spray-painted exterior, and a matching hidden serial number. The defendant initially claimed the tractor had been inherited from his late uncle and had always been black, but he later argued at trial that it was purchased from another individual named Franco, and that he had confused two similar tractors.The defendant was charged with felony theft in the District Court of Uinta County. At trial, he sought to introduce a document purporting to be a bill of sale for the tractor through a witness, Kyle Hartley, who testified to seeing the transaction occur. However, Hartley’s description of the document did not match the document offered—specifically, he recalled both parties signing, but the document lacked the defendant’s signature. The district court ruled that foundation for the document had not been established and excluded it unless further authentication was provided. As a result, the defendant testified solely to lay the foundation, and the document was admitted. The jury convicted the defendant, and he was sentenced to prison.On appeal to the Supreme Court of Wyoming, the defendant argued that the district court abused its discretion in requiring additional foundation for the bill of sale, effectively forcing him to testify. The Supreme Court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion, as the witness’s testimony did not sufficiently authenticate the document due to discrepancies. The conviction and judgment were affirmed. View "Titmus v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

Police investigating a sexual assault executed a search warrant at a mobile home occupied by three individuals, including the appellant. During the search of one resident’s bedroom, officers found a glass pipe believed to contain methamphetamine residue. The appellant and his mother, who also lived in the home, denied the presence of drugs when questioned. Based on the discovery, law enforcement obtained a second warrant to search the entire residence for controlled substances. This second search led to the discovery of methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia in a bench located in the appellant’s bedroom, resulting in his arrest and charge for felony possession.The District Court of Campbell County presided over the criminal case. The appellant filed a motion to suppress the evidence, arguing that the officer’s affidavit for the second search warrant omitted material facts, such as the pipe being found in a locked bedroom accessible only to one resident, and that these omissions undermined probable cause. After a hearing, the district court denied the motion, finding that the omitted facts would not have defeated probable cause, as the resident in whose room the pipe was found could access the entirety of the home, including the appellant’s bedroom. The appellant then entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving the right to appeal the suppression ruling.Reviewing the appeal, the Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the district court’s decision. It held that even if the omitted facts had been included in the affidavit, probable cause existed to search the entire mobile home because the resident implicated by the initial pipe discovery had access throughout the home. The Court concluded that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress, and the conviction was affirmed. View "Urrutia v. State" on Justia Law

The case concerns a defendant who was charged with felony interference with a peace officer and, after pleading guilty, was placed on supervised probation with a suspended prison sentence. Over the next few years, the defendant’s probation was twice revoked and reinstated, with the court imposing varying conditions in response to admitted violations, including substance use and other misconduct. After the defendant was given additional chances, including substance abuse treatment and a split sentence, the State eventually filed a third petition to revoke probation, alleging further violations such as drug use, failure to attend probation meetings, and inadequate progress in treatment.Following the third petition, the District Court of Goshen County held an adjudicatory hearing to determine whether the defendant violated probation terms. Both parties presented evidence and argument on the alleged violations. After the hearing, the district court found that the violations were proven by a preponderance of the evidence and that the defendant’s actions were willful. The court then immediately revoked probation and imposed the previously suspended prison sentence, without conducting a separate dispositional phase or allowing the defendant to present mitigation.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case under the plain error standard because the defendant did not object during the proceedings. The court held that, although Wyoming law does not require separate hearings for adjudication and disposition in probation revocation matters, both phases must be conducted with appropriate opportunity for mitigation and consideration of willfulness. The district court erred by failing to conduct the dispositional phase, denying the defendant procedural rights and undermining the fairness of the proceedings. The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s order and remanded for a proper disposition hearing in accordance with Wyoming law. View "Velasquez v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

In 1979, the appellant and his brother took a truck in Laramie, Wyoming, and drove it to Casper. The appellant pled guilty to felony Unauthorized Use of Automobile. The district court sentenced him, suspended the sentence, and placed him on probation. It further ordered that upon successful completion of one year of probation, he could withdraw his guilty plea and have the matter dismissed. After completing probation, the appellant was discharged, his guilty plea was withdrawn, and the case was dismissed. Despite this, the Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation maintained records incorrectly indicating he was a convicted felon.In 2025, the appellant petitioned the District Court of Albany County to expunge his records under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-13-1502, which provides for expungement of felony convictions. The State did not oppose the petition. The district court denied the request, reasoning that the appellant’s case was resolved through a deferred prosecution process—specifically, the withdrawal of the guilty plea and dismissal after probation—under statutes governing deferred dispositions. It concluded that, as there was no felony conviction, there was no conviction to expunge. The appellant’s motion to reconsider was also denied, and he appealed.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case and applied a de novo standard to statutory interpretation. It held that Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-13-1502 unambiguously limits expungement eligibility to persons convicted of felonies. The court determined that a deferred prosecution resulting in annulment or withdrawal of a guilty plea and dismissal does not constitute a conviction. Therefore, the appellant is not eligible for expungement under this statute. The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the district court’s denial of the expungement petition. View "Lynch v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

The defendant was charged with two counts of witness intimidation under Wyoming law, based on statements made during a supervised visit with his two daughters and a subsequent Facebook post. The daughters, aged 14 and 11, were residing at a youth home and scheduled to testify at an upcoming Child in Need of Supervision (CHINS) hearing. During the visit, the defendant made comments such as threatening to take away a tablet if one daughter refused to visit, and asked how the girls would feel if he took their kids away. He also referenced his right to bear arms and posted a Facebook rant containing generically threatening statements. Witnesses at the youth home perceived some of the remarks as threatening, but the daughters themselves did not clearly connect the comments to their upcoming court appearance.The District Court of Uinta County presided over the criminal trial. The jury convicted the defendant on both counts of witness intimidation under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-5-305(a), and the judge sentenced him to concurrent prison terms of four to eight years. The defendant appealed, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions and that his statements did not constitute actionable threats intended to influence or intimidate the witnesses in relation to their duty to testify.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case. Applying the standard that witness intimidation under the statute is a specific intent crime, the court determined that the evidence did not establish that the defendant’s statements were intended to influence, intimidate, or impede his daughters in their roles as witnesses. The court found no nexus between the alleged threats and the daughters’ participation in the CHINS hearing. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Wyoming held that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the convictions and reversed both counts. View "Brown v. State" on Justia Law

Law enforcement officers in Albany County, Wyoming, arrested an individual who had an outstanding warrant and was found in possession of controlled substances. During the arrest, officers located his truck, had a K9 unit alert to it, and towed it to an evidence bay. After obtaining a warrant, they searched the truck and seized substances later determined not to be illegal drugs. The truck was then released by law enforcement to a towing company, where it was placed in storage pending payment of fees. The owner was not notified of this arrangement until several months later. By the time he learned of the truck’s location, storage fees had accumulated to an amount he could not pay, and the truck was eventually sold at auction. The owner asserted he never received notice that the truck could be sold to cover the fees.The District Court of Albany County heard the owner’s pro se motion for return of the truck or, alternatively, for compensation equal to its value. The State responded that it no longer had possession of the vehicle, as it had been released to the towing company and not seized for forfeiture. After a hearing, the district court denied the motion, concluding it lacked authority to order return of property it no longer possessed or to award money damages under Wyoming Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g).The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case and held that a court has no jurisdiction under Rule 41(g) to order the return of property or award damages when the government no longer possesses the property. The court reaffirmed that sovereign immunity bars monetary relief under this rule and that any claim for damages must proceed as a separate civil action under the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act. The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion. View "Bressette v. State" on Justia Law

Blake Brewer was arrested after stealing a sound system and monitor from a Walmart in Gillette, Wyoming, resulting in a loss of $1,887. At the time, Brewer was on parole for a prior fraud-by-check conviction. He entered a plea agreement, pleading guilty to felony theft in exchange for a recommended sentence of 18 to 36 months and agreed to pay restitution. The plea agreement did not specify whether the new sentence would run concurrently or consecutively to any sentence that might be reinstated following a pending parole revocation for his earlier conviction.The District Court of Campbell County accepted Brewer’s guilty plea and imposed the recommended sentence. During the oral pronouncement, the court was silent regarding whether the sentence would run concurrently or consecutively to any reinstated sentence for the prior offense. In its written judgment, however, the court ordered Brewer’s sentence to run consecutive to any other sentence. After a motion from the State, the court issued an order nunc pro tunc to correct the sentence’s duration but retained the consecutive language. Brewer appealed, arguing that the written judgment imposed an illegal sentence because the oral pronouncement did not specify consecutive sentencing and the written order referenced a sentence not yet reinstated by the parole board.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case de novo, applying its precedent from Keefe v. State, 2024 WY 93, 555 P.3d 492 (Wyo. 2024). The court held that when a sentencing court is silent on whether a sentence runs concurrently or consecutively, Wyoming law presumes the sentences run consecutively. The written judgment merely confirmed this presumption. The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that Brewer’s sentence was not illegal. View "Brewer v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

A police officer in Casper, Wyoming, observed a pickup truck driven by Mark Davis traveling slowly and approaching a stop sign. The officer noticed Davis activated his right turn signal only shortly before stopping at the intersection, estimating the signal was turned on no more than twenty feet before the turn, rather than the statutorily required 100 feet. After stopping Davis, the officer discovered an open beer can and learned Davis’s license was suspended. A subsequent search of the vehicle revealed methamphetamine, marijuana, and drug paraphernalia. Davis was charged with felony possession of methamphetamine and felony possession with intent to deliver.Davis filed a motion to suppress the evidence, arguing the officer lacked reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop because he had activated his turn signal more than 100 feet before the turn. At the suppression hearing in the District Court of Natrona County, the officer testified about his training in estimating distances, and Davis’s expert witness presented calculations based on the dash cam video, but conceded uncertainty about Davis’s speed. The district court reviewed the video and testimony, ultimately finding the officer’s estimate credible and concluding the State met its burden to show reasonable suspicion for the stop. The court denied the motion to suppress, and Davis entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the district court’s denial of the suppression motion, deferring to its factual findings unless clearly erroneous and reviewing constitutional questions de novo. The Supreme Court held that, under the totality of the circumstances, the officer had reasonable suspicion to believe Davis violated the turn signal statute, justifying the stop. The district court’s findings were supported by the record, and the evidence obtained was admissible. The judgment was affirmed. View "Davis v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

Police and medical personnel responded to a motel room in Casper, Wyoming, where they found Chance Arias deceased with injuries consistent with assault and strangulation. Surveillance footage showed James Mavigliano and Amber Cook entering and leaving the room multiple times. Mavigliano was later found nearby with a blue duffle bag containing a broken, bloody lamp, and he possessed the room key and drug paraphernalia. After being advised of his rights, Mavigliano admitted to killing Arias, describing a physical altercation that escalated to him striking Arias with a lamp and strangling him with the lamp’s cord. He acknowledged that Arias did not physically threaten or attack him.The State charged Mavigliano with second-degree murder and possession of a controlled substance. The case was tried before the District Court of Natrona County. At trial, the defense argued self-defense, and the jury was instructed that the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mavigliano did not act in self-defense. The jury was also instructed on the requirement of unanimity for its verdict. The verdict form did not include a special interrogatory regarding self-defense, and defense counsel did not request one or object to the form. The jury found Mavigliano guilty of both charges, and he was sentenced accordingly.On appeal, Mavigliano challenged only his second-degree murder conviction, arguing that the district court committed plain error by not including a self-defense interrogatory on the verdict form. The Supreme Court of Wyoming held that there is no clear and unequivocal rule of law requiring a special self-defense interrogatory or unanimity instruction beyond the standard instructions given. The court found no plain error and affirmed the conviction. View "Mavigliano v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

James D. Van Winter moved in with his sister in Wyoming due to financial difficulties. After a family gathering, a dispute arose when Van Winter felt slighted by a guest, leading to a heated argument with his sister. The situation escalated when Van Winter refused to leave, resulting in a physical altercation with his brother-in-law. During the struggle, Van Winter threatened his brother-in-law with a pocketknife, which was later wrestled away, causing a minor injury. Police responded, collected statements and evidence, and Van Winter was arrested. He denied any altercation occurred.The State charged Van Winter with aggravated assault and battery and possession of a deadly weapon with unlawful intent. The District Court of Big Horn County presided over the jury trial, which resulted in convictions on both counts. At sentencing, the court orally imposed an 18–24 month prison term for Count I and a suspended 2–4 year sentence with probation for Count II. However, the written judgment imposed a suspended 3–5 year sentence and specified a three-year probation term. Van Winter appealed, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to present fingerprint evidence and challenging the discrepancy between the oral and written sentences.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case. It held that Van Winter failed to demonstrate prejudice from his counsel’s performance, as the fingerprint evidence would not have changed the trial’s outcome given the consistent witness testimony. Therefore, the district court’s denial of the motion for a new trial was affirmed. However, the Supreme Court found a material conflict between the oral and written sentences for Count II. It vacated the probationary term and remanded the case for the district court to conform the written judgment to the oral pronouncement and to determine the appropriate length of probation. View "Van Winter v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law