Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Michael Isreal Robin, Sr. was convicted by a jury on multiple counts, including theft of a vehicle, possession of cocaine, property destruction, possession of methamphetamine, and possession of marijuana. The appeal focuses solely on the conviction for theft of a vehicle. Robin contends that the State of Wyoming presented insufficient evidence to prove he exercised control over the vehicle without the owner's authorization.The District Court of Laramie County held a two-day jury trial in November 2024. The State called two witnesses: the investigating officer and the vehicle's owner, Gloria Landeroz. Officer Maljian testified about the surveillance and subsequent high-speed chase that led to Robin's arrest. Landeroz testified that she had loaned the vehicle to Robin but expected it to be returned before the day of the crash. She was uncertain about the exact dates but clarified that Robin did not have permission to use the vehicle on the day of the incident. Robin's motion for a judgment of acquittal was denied by the district court, and the jury found him guilty of vehicle theft.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case, focusing on whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support the conviction. The court noted that the standard of review requires assuming the State's evidence is true and giving the State the benefit of every favorable inference. The court found that Landeroz's testimony, despite her memory issues, provided sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that Robin did not have authorization to use the vehicle at the time of the incident. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that a reasonable jury could have found Robin guilty beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence presented. View "Robin v. State" on Justia Law

Logan Gregory Gosselin pled guilty to one count of sexual exploitation of a child and was sentenced to three to eight years in prison, with a recommendation for the Youthful Offender Transition Program (YOTP). Nearing completion of the YOTP, Gosselin filed a motion for sentence reduction, which the district court denied. Gosselin appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion and violated his constitutional rights by not honoring an earlier promise to reduce his sentence upon successful completion of the YOTP.The district court of Laramie County initially sentenced Gosselin and included a written judgment suggesting an expectation of sentence reduction if he completed the YOTP. However, the judge who issued the original sentence retired, and a new judge denied Gosselin's motion for sentence reduction without a hearing. Gosselin's appeal contended that the denial was an abuse of discretion and violated his due process and double jeopardy rights.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the district court did not abuse its discretion. The court clarified that the written judgment's language about an "expectation" of sentence reduction did not constitute a binding promise. The court also determined that the district court's oral pronouncement did not guarantee a sentence reduction but merely indicated that Gosselin would likely return to court to request it. The Supreme Court held that the district court's denial of the motion did not violate Gosselin's due process rights, as there was no protected interest in a guaranteed sentence reduction. Additionally, the court found no double jeopardy violation, as the denial of the motion did not increase Gosselin's original sentence. The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision. View "Gosselin v. State" on Justia Law

A detective from the Cheyenne Police Department investigated a break-in and vehicle theft at Swagger Construction on October 10, 2023. The project manager reported missing items, including a company truck and flatbed trailer, and noted "Claim Ins" written on a calendar. The security footage was also missing. The detective later found the stolen trailer on someone's property, loaded with tools, equipment, and a Jeep registered to Andrew Michael Hanson. Hanson was arrested for leaving the scene of an accident while driving the stolen truck. The detective found the missing security footage in the truck, which showed Hanson entering the building through a window and taking items.The State charged Hanson with burglary and felony theft. At trial, the State presented testimony from the arresting officer, the project manager, and the detective, and introduced the security footage as evidence. Hanson moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing insufficient evidence that he acted without authority. The district court denied the motion, and the jury found Hanson guilty on both counts. He was sentenced to two to four years of incarceration, suspended in favor of three years of probation.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case, focusing on whether the State presented sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Hanson acted without authority. The court held that the State provided strong circumstantial evidence, including the project manager's testimony, the security footage, and the detective's findings. The court affirmed Hanson's convictions, concluding that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to reasonably infer that Hanson acted without authority. View "Hanson v. State" on Justia Law

Timothy Duke was identified as one of the burglars involved in the theft of numerous items from three properties owned by Joseph Walsh in Cheyenne. The stolen items included cash, collectible coins, firearms, trade tokens, and antique police badges. Following an investigation, police recovered some of the stolen items from Duke's home, vehicle, and trailer. Duke was charged with theft over $1,000 and aggravated burglary with a deadly weapon. He pled guilty to the aggravated burglary charge as part of a plea agreement, and the theft charge was dismissed. Duke agreed to pay restitution jointly and severally with his co-defendants.The District Court of Laramie County held a restitution hearing where Walsh testified about the stolen items and their estimated values. The court also considered a presentence investigation report and victim impact statements. The court ordered Duke to pay $507,000 in restitution, finding the State had provided sufficient evidence to support the amount claimed.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case to determine if the district court abused its discretion in setting the restitution amount. The court found that Walsh's testimony, the State's supporting exhibits, and the presentence investigation report provided a reasonable basis for the restitution award. Walsh's detailed testimony about the stolen items and their values, corroborated by the presentence investigation report and victim impact statements, was deemed credible and sufficient.The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the district court's restitution order, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion and that the restitution amount was supported by sufficient evidence. View "Duke v. State" on Justia Law

Jeremy Clay was arrested for traffic violations and drug offenses on September 23, 2023, and later charged with failure to register as a convicted sex offender. He pled guilty to the failure to register charge and was sentenced to three to five years of incarceration, with all but thirty days suspended, followed by three years of supervised probation. Clay did not appeal the original judgment and sentence. On June 28, 2024, the State filed a petition to revoke his probation, alleging violations including failure to contact his probation agent, leaving Wyoming without permission, and failing to make a required payment. Clay admitted to the violations at a hearing, and the court revoked his probation, sentencing him to nine months in jail, suspended in favor of a split sentence of seventy-two days in jail followed by three years of supervised probation. He timely appealed the probation revocation order.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case. Clay's appeal focused on alleged violations of his rights during the original criminal proceedings, including claims of Fourth Amendment violations, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of counsel. The State argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to review these claims because Clay did not appeal the original judgment and sentence within the required thirty days.The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order, applying res judicata principles. The court held that Clay's claims were barred by res judicata because he could have raised them in a direct appeal of the original judgment and sentence but failed to do so. The court determined that the parties, subject matter, and issues were the same in both the original criminal proceeding and the probation revocation, and Clay did not show good cause for failing to raise the issues earlier. As a result, Clay was not entitled to relief from the court. View "Clay v. State" on Justia Law

Law enforcement traced the online distribution of child pornography to the defendant after receiving a tip from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. A search of his home led to the discovery of numerous video files containing child pornography, and the defendant admitted to both possessing and distributing such material for profit. He was charged with 20 counts of Sexual Exploitation of a Child, with some counts relating to files uploaded on a specific date and others to files found on his computer during the search.The defendant pled guilty to all charges in the District Court of Big Horn County. He was sentenced to concurrent prison terms for counts 1–14 and separate concurrent terms for counts 15–20, with the latter to run consecutively to the former. The defendant did not file a direct appeal. Later, he filed a motion under Wyoming Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(a) to correct what he argued was an illegal sentence, claiming that the multiple convictions and sentences violated double jeopardy protections because they arose from the same act. The district court denied the motion, finding the sentences appropriate based on the guilty pleas and the evidence of separate acts.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case and held that the defendant’s double jeopardy claim was barred by res judicata because he could have raised it on direct appeal but did not, and he failed to show good cause for this omission. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion to correct the sentence. However, the Supreme Court identified a discrepancy between the oral and written sentences and remanded the case to the district court solely to correct the written sentence so that it conforms to the oral pronouncement. View "Bernard v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

David Herrera, Jr. pled guilty to aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon and was sentenced to five to eight years in prison by the district court, which recommended his placement in the Youthful Offender Transition Program (YOTP). Herrera filed a motion for sentence reduction upon nearing completion of the YOTP, asserting that the district court had promised to reduce his sentence if he successfully completed the program.The district court denied Herrera’s motion for sentence reduction without holding a hearing or providing an explanation. Herrera appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion and violated his constitutional rights by not honoring the promise made during sentencing.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the district court’s oral pronouncement at sentencing, which stated Herrera “will get a sentence reduction” if he completed the YOTP, constituted an express commitment. The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying the motion for sentence reduction without justification, given the prior commitment. The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s decision and remanded the case for further sentencing proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Herrera v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

In July 2021, Ryan Schroeder was reported missing, leading to an investigation by the Casper Police Department. Schroeder's last known location was in Denver, and his cell phone records showed communication with Justin Marquez until June 26, 2021. Detectives interviewed Marquez, who admitted to being in Denver but denied picking up Schroeder. Another witness, Jeremiah Cox, last saw Schroeder getting into a maroon SUV with Marquez. Detectives obtained a warrant for Marquez's cell phone records and discovered he owned a maroon Hyundai SUV. A search of the vehicle revealed blood stains and a decomposition odor, leading to further investigation and the discovery of Schroeder's body.The District Court of Natrona County denied Marquez's motion to designate an expert witness after the deadline and two motions to suppress evidence. Marquez argued the search of his vehicle exceeded the warrant's scope and that the warrant contained misrepresentations and omissions. The court found the Hyundai was the intended subject of the warrant and denied the motions to suppress.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decisions. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the late expert witness designation, as Marquez's own conduct caused the delay. The court also found no violation of Marquez's right to compulsory process. Regarding the motions to suppress, the court concluded the search warrant and accompanying affidavits sufficiently described the Hyundai, and there was no reasonable probability of mistakenly searching another premise. The court also found no clear error in the district court's conclusion that Marquez failed to prove intentional or reckless misrepresentation or omission of material information in the affidavits. The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the district court's rulings and Marquez's conviction. View "Marquez v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

Gabriel Lee Testerman was found guilty by a jury of one count of first-degree sexual assault. The case involved two victims, CB and CM. CB testified that after meeting Testerman at a bar and later going to his house, she became disoriented after drinking a beverage he made. She alleged that Testerman sexually assaulted her while she was incapacitated. CM, Testerman's former girlfriend, testified that he had previously forced her into non-consensual sexual acts, including using a spreader bar and engaging in anal sex while she was asleep.The District Court of Laramie County admitted evidence of prior bad acts under Wyoming Rule of Evidence 404(b) after a pretrial hearing. Testerman was charged with three counts of first-degree sexual assault, two related to CB and one to CM. The jury acquitted him of the charges related to CB but found him guilty of the charge related to CM. He was sentenced to ten to fifteen years in prison.On appeal to the Supreme Court of Wyoming, Testerman argued that the prosecutor committed misconduct by introducing unnoticed Rule 404(b) evidence and vouching for witnesses during closing arguments. The court reviewed the alleged unnoticed Rule 404(b) evidence and found that five instances were indeed unnoticed but concluded that Testerman was not materially prejudiced by their admission. The court also found that the prosecutor's comments during closing arguments did not constitute improper vouching.The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence and that Testerman was not deprived of a fair trial due to prosecutorial misconduct or cumulative error. View "Testerman v. State" on Justia Law

Richard Hanson was a passenger in a vehicle stopped for missing license plates. During a consent search of the vehicle, law enforcement discovered a firearm and drug paraphernalia with residue inside a backpack. Hanson was charged with and convicted of being a felon knowingly in possession of a firearm and third offense possession of a controlled substance. On appeal, Hanson argued that the search of the vehicle was unlawful and that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence collected from the backpack. He also contended that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion to suppress evidence as a discovery sanction.The District Court of Lincoln County denied Hanson’s motion to suppress evidence, finding that the search was lawful and that Hanson’s consent to the search was voluntary. The court also denied Hanson’s second motion to suppress evidence disclosed by the State after the discovery deadline, concluding that the delay was not due to bad faith and that Hanson was not unduly prejudiced by the late disclosure. Hanson was subsequently found guilty on both counts and sentenced to imprisonment.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decisions. The court held that the traffic stop and subsequent search were lawful, as the officer’s questioning and request to search were reasonable under the circumstances. The court also found that Hanson’s consent to the search was voluntary, considering the totality of the circumstances. Additionally, the court determined that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hanson’s motion to suppress the late-disclosed evidence, as the delay was not intentional and did not unduly prejudice Hanson. The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the district court’s rulings and Hanson’s convictions. View "Hanson v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law