Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

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

Rick James Little was found guilty by a jury of one count of sexual abuse of a minor in the third degree and one misdemeanor count of attempted sexual battery. He filed a motion for a new trial, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied the motion, concluding that Mr. Little failed to show a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been more favorable absent any deficiencies in his counsel’s performance.The District Court of Campbell County initially reviewed the case. Mr. Little's defense argued that he was not present at the scene of the alleged crimes. However, during the trial, the prosecution presented strong evidence, including testimony from the victims and their mother, as well as a text message from Mr. Little that placed him at the scene. Mr. Little's counsel introduced his prior convictions during voir dire and opening statements, which Mr. Little later claimed was a strategic error. The district court found that the defense strategy, although unorthodox, was not unreasonable given Mr. Little's insistence on testifying.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court held that Mr. Little did not demonstrate a reasonable probability that the trial outcome would have been different without the alleged deficiencies in his counsel’s performance. The court noted that the evidence against Mr. Little was strong, including detailed testimonies from the victims and corroborating evidence from their mother. The court also found that the potential alibi witness, Amber Everly, was equivocal about Mr. Little’s presence at her house on the night of the incident, and the text message evidence was dispositive. Consequently, the Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision, concluding that Mr. Little was not denied effective assistance of counsel. View "Little v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

The case involves Andrew James Keller, who pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to deliver methamphetamine. Keller, representing himself, argued that the district court erred by denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea under Wyoming Rule of Criminal Procedure (W.R.Cr.P.) 32(d) and his subsequent Wyoming Rule of Appellate Procedure (W.R.A.P.) 21 motion to withdraw his guilty plea and for a new trial due to ineffective assistance of counsel. He claimed that his public defenders had conflicts of interest and did not provide reasonably competent assistance.The district court denied Keller's motion to withdraw his guilty plea, concluding that he did not establish a fair and just reason to withdraw his guilty plea under Rule 32(d). Keller then filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea and for a new trial under W.R.A.P. 21, claiming he received ineffective assistance from his three defense attorneys. The district court denied Keller's Rule 21 motion and issued findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of its decision.The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that Keller failed to establish that his attorneys' performance was deficient, and thus, he did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel. The court also found that Keller failed to present a fair and just reason to withdraw his guilty plea under W.R.Cr.P. 32(d). View "Keller v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

The case involves Camilo Jesus Alarcon-Bustos, who was convicted of felony property destruction and misdemeanor reckless driving and possessing an open container of an alcoholic beverage. Alarcon-Bustos lost control of his truck while towing a trailer, causing significant damage to a park. The damage exceeded $18,000. Witnesses testified that Alarcon-Bustos and another man appeared intoxicated at the scene. Alarcon-Bustos claimed he had not been drinking and that the accident was caused by a problem with the wheel of his truck.At trial, Alarcon-Bustos was found guilty of all charges and sentenced to two to four years of incarceration, suspended in favor of two years of probation. He appealed his conviction, arguing that the prosecutor committed prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments by misstating the law and referring to facts not in evidence.The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that the prosecutor did not misstate the law regarding the "knowingly" element of felony property destruction. The court also found that while the prosecutor did reference a conversation with a prospective juror during closing arguments, which was not in evidence, this did not materially prejudice Alarcon-Bustos. The court concluded that Alarcon-Bustos did not establish plain error, and thus, his conviction was upheld. View "Alarcon-Bustos v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Audrey Mae Lessner, who was convicted of felony child abuse under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-503(b)(i) (2023) after a bench trial. The charges stemmed from an incident where Lessner, while babysitting an 11-year-old child identified as FF, spanked the child eleven times with a belt as punishment for lying. The spanking resulted in significant bruising on the child's thigh. Lessner appealed her conviction, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by denying her motion to continue the trial and that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to prove that she did not engage in reasonable corporal punishment.Prior to the trial in the District Court of Sweetwater County, Lessner had sought to represent herself, a request that the court granted after advising her of the risks. She later filed a motion for an extension of time, claiming that the prosecution was not assisting her in obtaining information for a subpoena. However, she later informed the court that she no longer needed an extension and was ready for trial. On the first day of the bench trial, Lessner filed a motion for an emergency hearing, asserting that she was not ready to proceed because the State was denying some discovery. The court denied her motion and proceeded with the trial.The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the lower court's decision. It found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lessner's motion to continue the trial. The court also found that the State presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the physical injury inflicted on the child was not the result of reasonable corporal punishment. The court noted that Lessner's actions, including her decision to use a belt to avoid injuring her hand and her refusal to stop spanking the child other than to rest her arm, did not represent a method of correction but rather an adult who had lost control of her own responses. View "Lessner v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law