Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Joseph Lyle Fredrick was charged with multiple counts of possession of controlled substances and misdemeanor theft in June 2021. He pled guilty to felony possession of marijuana and misdemeanor possession of heroin, leading to the dismissal of other charges. The district court sentenced him to 117 days for the misdemeanor, with credit for time served, and three to five years for the felony, suspended for three years of supervised probation. His probation was transferred to Oregon.In September 2023, the State filed a petition to revoke Fredrick’s probation, alleging he absconded and had no contact with his probation officer after July 2023. He was arrested in Oregon in November 2023, transported to Wyoming in December, and remained in custody. The district court held an initial appearance on December 19 and set an adjudication hearing for December 27. The State moved to allow the probation officer to testify by video, which the court granted. The hearing was continued to January 5, 2024, due to discovery issues and the probation officer’s failure to appear.At the January 5 hearing, the probation officer testified by video, and Fredrick moved to dismiss the revocation petition due to discovery violations. The court denied the motion but continued the hearing to January 19 to resolve the discovery dispute. On January 19, the court denied Fredrick’s motion to dismiss, found certain documents privileged, and concluded there was good cause for the continuances. The court revoked Fredrick’s probation and reinstated his three- to five-year sentence, with credit for time served.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decisions. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in extending the revocation hearing beyond the 15-day limit, allowing the probation officer to testify by video, and determining that certain probation records were privileged. The court also found that the discovery dispute did not warrant dismissal of the petition. View "Fredrick v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

Donald Floyd Detimore was convicted of sexually abusing his step-granddaughter, MD, when she was between seven and nine years old. MD disclosed the abuse during a medical checkup at age sixteen, leading to an investigation where she detailed the abuse, including inappropriate touching and forced sexual acts. Detimore denied the allegations but admitted to behaviors that could be seen as inappropriate.The District Court of Fremont County denied Detimore's pretrial motion to introduce evidence under the rape shield statute, which he argued was crucial to his defense. This evidence pertained to an "embarrassing and shameful situation" involving MD, which Detimore claimed would show a motive for MD to fabricate the allegations. The court found the evidence's probative value did not substantially outweigh its prejudicial effect and thus excluded it. Detimore was subsequently found guilty by a jury and sentenced to 40-50 years in prison.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and upheld the lower court's decision. The court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the evidence under the rape shield statute, as Detimore failed to show a direct link between the "embarrassing and shameful situation" and MD's motive to lie. The court also determined that Detimore's constitutional rights to confront witnesses and present a complete defense were not violated, as he was able to challenge MD's credibility through other means during the trial. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence. View "Detimore v. State" on Justia Law

Elijah Dante Dobbins was convicted by a jury of third-degree sexual abuse of a minor, strangulation of a household member, unlawful contact, and permitting a house party. The incident occurred during a party at Dobbins's apartment, where a physical altercation between Dobbins and his girlfriend, Harmony Lehmbeck, was recorded by a coworker. The videos showed various stages of the struggle, including moments where Dobbins appeared to choke Lehmbeck. Lehmbeck testified that Dobbins did not choke her and that she did not lose consciousness.The District Court of Natrona County admitted the videos as evidence during the trial. After the case was submitted to the jury, the court clarified which exhibits were admitted and stated that the videos would not be sent to the jury room but could be reviewed in the courtroom if requested. During deliberations, the jury asked to view the videos to clarify the alleged strangulation and battery. The court, with the approval of both parties, allowed the jury to view the videos twice under supervision.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the videos were non-testimonial, meaning the district court had broad discretion to allow the jury to review them during deliberations. The court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion by permitting the jury to view the videos again, given their short duration and the need for clarity on the strangulation charge. The court concluded that the district court's controlled procedure for reviewing the videos was appropriate and did not unduly emphasize the evidence. View "Dobbins v. State" on Justia Law

William R. Durkin, III, pled guilty to felony theft and felony property destruction and was sentenced to concurrent terms of five to eight years in prison, which were suspended in favor of a split sentence of one year in county jail followed by four to five years of supervised probation. After moving to Michigan, Durkin violated his probation by using alcohol and cocaine. As a sanction, Michigan Probation required him to complete the Tri County Community Adjudication Program (TRICAP), a probation residential center. Durkin spent 107 days at TRICAP but later violated probation again by drinking alcohol and absconding. Wyoming authorities filed a motion to revoke his probation, and Durkin was arrested in 2023.The District Court of Converse County revoked Durkin's probation and imposed his suspended prison sentences, reducing them to concurrent terms of four to six years. The court credited him for 413 days served in official detention in Wyoming but denied credit for the 107 days spent at TRICAP. Durkin appealed the revocation order and filed a motion to correct his sentences, arguing that the court erred by not crediting his time at TRICAP. The district court denied his motion, and Durkin appealed this decision as well.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that Durkin was not in "official detention" while at TRICAP, as it was not an approved Wyoming Adult Community Corrections (ACC) program and did not subject him to escape charges under Wyoming law. Consequently, Durkin was not entitled to credit against his prison sentences for the time spent at TRICAP. The court concluded that the district court's sentences were legal and properly denied Durkin's motion to correct his sentences. View "Durkin v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

In the early morning of July 8, 2022, Officer Luke Thorp of the Mills Police Department responded to a report of an unconscious male in a truck with syringes on the ground nearby. Upon arrival, Officer Thorp found Travis Dean Schaub in the vehicle, appearing disoriented and exhibiting signs of intoxication. After a slow and difficult exit from the vehicle, Schaub refused consent to a search, but Officer Thorp proceeded to search him, finding methamphetamine. Schaub was then handcuffed, placed in the patrol vehicle, and read his Miranda rights.The District Court of Natrona County reviewed Schaub’s motion to suppress the evidence obtained during the search, arguing it exceeded the scope of an investigatory stop and lacked a warrant. The State contended that the search was justified as incident to a lawful arrest for public intoxication. The district court agreed with the State, finding that Officer Thorp had probable cause to arrest Schaub for public intoxication under the Mills Municipal Code, and thus the search was lawful.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that Officer Thorp had probable cause to arrest Schaub based on his observed intoxication and the presence of syringes. The court further held that the search was valid as incident to a lawful arrest, even though it preceded the formal arrest by a few minutes. The court emphasized that the Fourth Amendment does not require the arrest to precede the search, as long as the arrest follows quickly and there is probable cause. Therefore, the denial of Schaub’s motion to suppress was upheld. View "Schaub v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

On January 12, 2023, Officer Kevin Valentine of the Buffalo Police Department responded to a report of a suspicious vehicle at a gas station. The vehicle, a white Toyota Camry with Montana plates, had been parked at a pump for 30-45 minutes with its windows covered. Upon arrival, Officer Valentine observed Robert Labbe exiting the vehicle and asked him to return to the car for questioning. Labbe did not have his driver’s license, and a check revealed his license was suspended. The passenger, Elizabeth Davison, also had a suspended license and an active warrant.Officer Dustin Matthews arrived to assist, and after arresting Davison, the officers requested a canine unit. Deputy Quinn Maddox and his drug detection dog, Lucy, arrived 18 minutes later. Lucy alerted to the presence of drugs, leading to a search that uncovered marijuana, paraphernalia, and suspected fentanyl pills. The vehicle was towed for a more thorough search, revealing significant quantities of methamphetamine, fentanyl pills, marijuana, and THC. Labbe was charged with multiple counts of possession of controlled substances.Labbe filed a motion to suppress the evidence, arguing the drugs were found as a result of an illegal detention. The District Court of Johnson County denied the motion, stating the vehicle was in a public parking lot and law enforcement did not need reasonable suspicion, probable cause, or consent for a canine sniff. Labbe entered conditional guilty pleas to two felony counts, reserving the right to appeal the suppression ruling.The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that the canine sniff was lawful as it occurred in a public place, and the dog’s alert provided probable cause for the search. The court found the evidence was not obtained as a result of an unlawful detention, making the search and subsequent seizure of drugs lawful. View "Labbe v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

On March 4, 2023, Officer Brandon LaPointe stopped Antonio Kaye Lee's vehicle for illegally tinted windows. After confirming the tint violation, Officer LaPointe called for a canine unit, which alerted to narcotics. A search revealed methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia. When informed of his arrest, Mr. Lee resisted, leading to a struggle during which officers claimed he attempted to grab their firearms. Mr. Lee was charged with multiple offenses, including two counts of attempting to disarm a peace officer.The District Court of Sweetwater County presided over the trial. Mr. Lee admitted to the drug-related charges but denied attempting to disarm the officers, asserting he was merely trying to escape. The officers testified that Mr. Lee grabbed their firearms during the struggle. The jury found Mr. Lee guilty on all counts, and he was sentenced to concurrent prison terms for the misdemeanors and the attempted disarming charges.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case, focusing on whether the district court erred by not instructing the jury on all elements of attempting to disarm a peace officer, specifically the requirement of a "substantial step" toward committing the crime. The court found that the district court's failure to include this element in the jury instructions constituted plain error. The Supreme Court held that this omission materially prejudiced Mr. Lee because the jury might not have found he took a substantial step toward disarming the officers, given the conflicting testimonies. Consequently, the Wyoming Supreme Court reversed the district court's decision. View "Lee v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

Jarrett Gage Vargas was convicted of aggravated child abuse after his three-month-old foster child, RW, suffered severe injuries while in his care. On October 15, 2021, RW began seizing, prompting Vargas to call 911. Medical examinations revealed both acute and chronic subdural hematomas, a brain contusion, and retinal hemorrhages. Vargas admitted to handling RW roughly and bouncing him aggressively. The State charged Vargas with aggravated child abuse, arguing that RW’s injuries were caused by nonaccidental trauma.The District Court of Natrona County presided over the trial. The State presented medical experts who testified that RW’s injuries were consistent with abusive head trauma. Vargas countered with his own medical expert, who suggested that RW’s injuries could have been caused by a preexisting condition called external hydrocephalus, which could lead to subdural hematomas from benign activities. The jury found Vargas guilty of aggravated child abuse, and he was sentenced to 10-15 years in prison. Vargas filed a direct appeal and a motion for a new trial, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied the motion, and Vargas appealed that denial as well. The appeals were consolidated, but Vargas did not pursue the ineffective assistance claim further.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case, focusing on whether the district court erred in rejecting Vargas’ proposed theory of defense jury instruction. Vargas argued that the jury should have been instructed that if RW’s injuries could be explained by a preexisting medical condition, the State had not met its burden of proof. The Supreme Court held that Vargas’ proposed instruction was not a proper theory of defense, as it essentially argued a failure of proof rather than presenting a recognized legal defense. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, concluding that the jury was adequately instructed on the State’s burden of proof and that Vargas was able to present his arguments during the trial. View "Vargas v. State" on Justia Law

Rickey Dean Keefe was sentenced to three to six years in prison in 2020 for possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver. While on parole in 2022, he was arrested and pled guilty to two new felony drug charges. In 2023, the district court sentenced him to seven to ten years in prison for the 2022 convictions but did not specify if the sentence would run consecutively or concurrently with the 2020 sentence. The Wyoming Board of Parole revoked his parole and treated the 2023 sentence as consecutive. Keefe filed a motion to correct the allegedly illegal sentence, which the district court denied.The District Court of Campbell County initially sentenced Keefe to five to seven years in prison in 2016, suspended in favor of probation. After multiple probation violations, the court imposed the 2020 sentence. In 2022, Keefe was arrested again and pled guilty to new charges. The district court merged the two counts for sentencing and imposed a single sentence of seven to ten years in 2023. Keefe's motion to correct the sentence argued that the sentences should run concurrently, but the district court denied the motion, citing precedent that sentences are presumed consecutive when the court is silent on the matter.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Keefe’s motion. The court clarified that under Wyoming law, a sentence is presumed to be consecutive when the sentencing court is silent on whether it is concurrent or consecutive. The district court's subsequent order confirmed that the sentences should run consecutively. The court also rejected Keefe's argument that the State should be bound by its incorrect statement that sentences are presumed concurrent, noting that courts are not bound by parties’ admissions of law.The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that Keefe's sentence was not illegal. View "Keefe v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

Amy Romero was arrested for driving while under the influence of alcohol (DWUI) after being found stuck in a snowbank. Officer George Phillips of the Rawlins Police Department noticed the vehicle and, upon investigation, detected a strong odor of alcohol from Ms. Romero. During the interaction, Ms. Romero admitted to driving the vehicle and exhibited signs of intoxication. Officer Phillips placed her in the back of his patrol car to deescalate a potentially violent situation with her husband, Joseph Romero, who was also present and behaving aggressively.The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) upheld the suspension of Ms. Romero’s driver’s license, concluding that Officer Phillips had reasonable suspicion to detain her for a DWUI investigation. The OAH found that the officer’s actions, including placing Ms. Romero in the patrol car and transporting her to a dry environment for field sobriety tests, were justified based on the totality of the circumstances, including the strong odor of alcohol, her admission of driving, and the need to manage her husband’s aggressive behavior.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the OAH’s decision. The Court held that Officer Phillips’ detention of Ms. Romero in the back of the patrol car did not constitute an unlawful arrest but was a reasonable investigative detention supported by substantial evidence. The Court found that the officer’s actions were necessary to ensure safety and were within the scope of a lawful investigative detention. The Court concluded that the OAH’s findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the detention was in accordance with constitutional protections. The decision to uphold the suspension of Ms. Romero’s driver’s license was affirmed. View "Romero v. State of Wyoming Ex Rel., Wyoming Department of Transportation" on Justia Law