Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

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

Donald A. Whitmore was convicted of vehicular homicide and four misdemeanors following a car accident that resulted in the death of Antonio Jurado, III. The accident occurred after Whitmore and his coworkers completed an overnight shift and were traveling at high speed. The vehicle, driven by Whitmore, failed to navigate a curve, resulting in a crash that ejected Jurado, causing his immediate death. Whitmore and another passenger, Josh Voytoski, survived with injuries. Whitmore was found outside the vehicle, and both he and Voytoski initially claimed Jurado was driving. However, Voytoski later admitted Whitmore was the driver.The District Court of Converse County conducted a three-day jury trial where the central issue was whether Whitmore was driving. The jury found Whitmore guilty based on evidence including Voytoski’s testimony, forensic evidence, and Whitmore’s own statements. The court sentenced Whitmore to twelve to sixteen years for vehicular homicide and lesser concurrent sentences for the misdemeanors. Whitmore appealed, arguing prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the appeal, focusing on whether the prosecutor’s comments during closing arguments constituted misconduct by commenting on Whitmore’s decision not to testify, shifting the burden of proof, or vouching for a witness’s credibility. The court found that the prosecutor’s statements did not directly or indirectly comment on Whitmore’s silence, improperly shift the burden of proof, or vouch for the credibility of Voytoski. The court held that the prosecutor’s comments were permissible inferences from the evidence presented.The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision, concluding that Whitmore failed to demonstrate plain error or material prejudice from the prosecutor’s statements. The court emphasized the strength of the State’s case, including compelling circumstantial evidence that Whitmore was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. View "Whitmore v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

Jennifer Lynch pled guilty to one count of misdemeanor endangering children and one count of felony child abuse. She appealed her child abuse conviction, arguing that there was no factual basis to support the charge and that the district court abused its discretion in denying her post-sentence motion to withdraw her guilty plea.The District Court of Carbon County initially accepted Lynch's guilty plea after a colloquy to ensure it was made voluntarily. Lynch admitted to giving her prescription Seroquel to her mother, who then administered it to her children. The court found this sufficient to support the plea. Lynch was sentenced to nine-to-ten years in prison for child abuse and 25 days in jail for endangering children. She later filed a motion to withdraw her guilty plea, which the district court denied.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case and found that the district court erred in accepting Lynch's guilty plea without a sufficient factual basis. The court noted that while Lynch admitted to giving Seroquel to her children, there was no evidence that this caused the physical injury required for a child abuse conviction under Wyoming law. The court emphasized that the factual basis must establish all elements of the charged crime, including physical injury, which was not demonstrated in this case.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reversed Lynch's child abuse conviction and remanded the case for further proceedings, finding that the district court's acceptance of the guilty plea without a sufficient factual basis materially prejudiced Lynch's substantial rights. View "Lynch v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

In early fall 2021, JM, a student at Cody High School, disclosed to her counselor that her biological father, Dustin M. Sanchez, had inappropriately touched her during a visit in June 2021. JM reported that while watching a movie, Sanchez put his arm around her, reached across her chest, and placed his hand on her left breast under her shirt and bra. Despite her attempts to move away, Sanchez kept her close until she excused herself to go to the bathroom and texted her grandmother to pick her up. Sanchez was subsequently charged with one count of second-degree sexual abuse of a minor.The District Court of Park County conducted a three-day jury trial, resulting in Sanchez's conviction. He was sentenced to eight-to-ten years in prison. Sanchez appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction and that the prosecutor committed misconduct by misstating the law during closing and rebuttal arguments.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support Sanchez's conviction. The court noted that Sanchez, as JM's biological father, occupied a "position of authority" under Wyoming Statute § 6-2-315(a)(iv), which does not require additional proof of significant influence over the victim if the defendant falls into one of the statute’s enumerated categories, such as a parent. The court also found that the prosecutor did not misstate the law during closing arguments. The prosecutor's statements were consistent with the legal interpretation that Sanchez, as JM’s parent, inherently occupied a position of authority. Consequently, the court affirmed Sanchez's conviction and sentence. View "Sanchez v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law