Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction of two counts of second degree sexual assault by a person in a position of authority, in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. 6-2-303(a)(vi), holding that Defendant’s no-contest pleas waived the issue he raised on appeal.Defendant pleaded no contest to two charges of second degree sexual assault. On appeal, Defendant argued that the facts alleged in this case did not constitute a crime because a clinical psychologist is not in a position of authority as that term is used in the applicable Wyoming criminal statute. The Supreme court affirmed the convictions and judgment of the district court, holding that, by pleading no contest, Defendant waived the right to challenge all the issues he raised on appeal. View "Popkin v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed convictions of Defendants - Dennis Larkins and Emily Larkins - for multiple counts of child abuse and one count of abuse of a vulnerable adult, holding that there was no reversible error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Court held (1) the State presented sufficient evidence to support the convictions; (2) the district court did not err when it denied Defendants’ motion for new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel; and (3) while some of the prosecutor’s statements during closing argument amounted to misconduct, the misconduct did not materially prejudice either Defendant. View "Larkins v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions for strangulation of a household member and domestic battery, holding that Defendant failed to demonstrate plain error on appeal.Specifically, the Court held (1) the district court did not commit plain error in allowing the State to present evidence that may be construed as victim impact testimony in its relevance; (2) the district court did not commit plain error in allowing a witness to testify as to what Defendant argued was her opinion that Defendant was guilty because the testimony did not contain an actual conclusion of Defendant’s guilt; and (3) as to Defendant’s argument that certain testimony improperly vouched for the credibility of the victim, there was no reasonable probability that the jury would have returned a more favorable verdict in the absence of the disputed testimony. View "Dumas v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction of strangulation of a household member, holding that Defendant failed to demonstrate that the State violated its obligations under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).On appeal, Defendant argued that his due process rights were violated when the State failed to comply with Brady by withholding evidence from him until the last possible moment before trial. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the State did not violate Brady by providing the evidence to Defendant within the deadline established by the district court. View "Curby v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed a district court order revoking Appellant’s probation and imposing underlying sentences for her child endangerment and controlled substance convictions, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion.Specifically, the Court held that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion by relying on hearsay and non-hearsay evidence to find that Appellant violated a condition of her probation on two occasions; (2) did not abuse its discretion in finding that Appellant violated a probation condition by failing to submit to a scheduled urinalysis appointment; and (3) did not err in determining that Appellant willfully violated a probation condition requiring her to report for a urinalysis test. View "Brumme v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed a district court order revoking Appellant’s probation and ordering that he serve the remaining portions of a prison sentence that had been suspended, holding that Appellant’s underlying sentence was not illegal.Appellant pleaded guilty to state charges and was later convicted of federal charges arising from the same conduct that resulted in the state charges. After Appellant was sentenced to a “lengthy” prison sentence, Appellant and the State filed a stipulated motion requesting the court to modify the order granting a sentence reduction. The district court granted the motion and modified Appellant’s sentence in accordance with the motion. When Appellant was released from federal prison and began to serve his state probation, the district court determined that Appellant had violated terms of his probation and revoked his probation. On appeal, Appellant argued that the reduced sentence he requested and the district court ordered was illegal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant’s modified reduced state sentence did not consist of impermissible interrupted periods of incarceration, and therefore, Appellant’s sentence was not illegal. View "Nitchman v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction of second degree sexual assault, holding that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of prior bad acts absent notice from the State of its intent to offer such evidence and without conducting a hearing pursuant to Gleason v. State, 57 P.3d 332 (Wyo. 2002), but the error did not prejudice Defendant.The State in this case failed to disclose its intent to use Wyo. R. Evid. 404(b) evidence and failed to provide the purpose for admission of such evidence prior to trial, and the State’s omissions prevented the district court from holding the required Gleason hearing prior to admission of the evidence. The Supreme Court held (1) the evidence falling within the purview of Rule 404(b) was erroneously admitted, without the required Gleason analysis; but (2) there was no reasonable possibility the verdict would have been different without the evidence, and therefore, the error was not prejudicial. View "Broberg v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant Steven Mitchell was held in contempt of court for violating a custody order. The district court ordered confinement until Mitchell purged himself of contempt by relinquishing custody of the minor child. While confined for contempt, Mitchell pled no contest to one count of felony interference with custody, for which he received a sentence of three and one-half years to five years of imprisonment, with no credit for presentence incarceration. The district court also ordered the criminal sentence to commence on termination of Mitchell’s confinement for contempt. Mitchell appeals his criminal sentence contending it was illegal. Finding no reversible error or illegality, the Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed. View "Mitchell v. Wyoming" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of Appellant’s motion filed under Wyo. R. App. P. 21 to withdraw his no contest pleas based on ineffective assistance of counsel, holding that the advice from Defendant’s fourth trial counsel as to whether Defendant could challenge his convictions after pleas of no contest did not render Defendant’s pleas involuntary.Defendant plead no contest to one count of possession with intent to deliver marijuana and one count of felony possession of marijuana. In his Rule 21 motion, Defendant claimed that his counsel incorrectly advised him he could pursue claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and violation of his right to a speedy trial in an appeal if he entered a no contest plea, rendering his plea involuntary. The district court denied the motion, finding that Defendant did not meet his burden of showing that, but for his counsel’s erroneous advice, Defendant would have insisted on going to trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in determining that Defendant failed to establish he was prejudiced by the erroneous advice of his trial counsel. View "Miller v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction of two counts of strangulation of a household member, holding that the prosecutor did not commit misconduct during closing argument.On appeal, Defendant argued (1) the prosecutor’s repeated use of the “golden rule” argument subverted the objectivity of the jury and materially prejudiced him, and (2) the prosecutor’s repeated reference to the complaining witness as the “victim,” referring to the defense theory as “victim blaming,” and referring to what the defendant did not say to police resulted in cumulative error, materially prejudicing him. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the prosecutor did not make improper golden rule arguments during her closing argument and did not otherwise commit misconduct. Therefore, there was no cumulative error. View "Buszkiewic v. State" on Justia Law