Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of first degree sexual assault for forcing a young woman to perform oral sex on him. Defendant appealed, arguing that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in three respects. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction and sentence, holding that Defendant did not prove that his counsel was constitutionally ineffective for (1) seeking to introduce evidence under Wyoming’s rape shield statute; (2) failing to investigate Defendant’s “probable level of intoxication” before an interview with law enforcement; and (3) failing to object to a statement made by the prosecutor during her rebuttal closing argument. View "McGarvey v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of three counts of second-degree sexual assault. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant was not denied his right to a speedy trial; (2) the district court properly admitted forensic interview evidence as a prior consistent statement; (3) the bill of particulars was sufficient for Defendant to adequately prepare a defense; (4) the circuit court committed harmless error when it granted an ex parte motion quashing Defendant’s subpoena to call the victim and her mother as witnesses at a preliminary hearing; (5) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied admission of sexualized behavior evidence on relevancy and hearsay grounds; and (6) the State did not commit prosecutorial misconduct when it referenced a non-religious quote from a church sign in its opening statement. View "Ortiz v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to felony larceny and was placed on probation subject to placement in an adult community correctional facility. Shortly after that placement, Defendant checked out of the facility and did not return. Defendant subsequently pled guilty to felony escape from official detention. The district court revoked Defendant’s probation and sentenced Defendant on both the larceny and escape convictions. A year and a half later, Defendant filed a combined Wyo. R. Crim. P. 35 motion for sentence reduction and motion for injunction seeking an order enjoining the Wyoming Board of Parole from interpreting Wyoming law in a manner that would preclude him from parole eligibility. The district court concluded that it lacked authority to rule on the motion because Defendant filed it outside the one-year period allowed for sentence reduction motions. The Supreme Court dismissed Defendant’s appeal, holding that the district court was without subject matter jurisdiction to consider Defendant’s motion on the basis that the motion was filed outside the time limits prescribed by Rule 35(b), and consequently, the Court was without jurisdiction to consider this appeal. View "Hitz v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant pled guilty to charges of strangulation of a household member, domestic battery, and reckless endangerment. The district court sentenced Appellant to three to five years on the strangulation charge to be served concurrent with a one year sentence on the domestic battery charge. Appellant subsequently filed a motion for sentence reduction based on his good behavior while incarcerated. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, given the circumstances of this case and the Court’s longstanding precedent regarding sentence reduction motions based on a defendant’s behavior while incarcerated, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant’s motion to reduce his sentence. View "Gilmer v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant, an inmate at the Wyoming State Penitentiary, was convicted of two counts of conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance and two counts of conspiracy to take a controlled substance into a state penal institution. The Supreme affirmed the convictions, holding (1) there was no violation of Defendant’s right to a speedy trial, where the time between Defendant’s arraignment and trial was 201 days, as the delay was part of the due administration of justice and thus did not violate Wyo. R. Crim. P. 48; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Appellant’s motion to continue. View "Vargas v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant entered into a conditional plea agreement pursuant to which he pled guilty to interference with a peace officer and reserved the right to appeal three issues. The district court affirmed the circuit court’s rulings on those three issues. The Supreme Court reversed after addressing only one issue that was not addressed by either party, holding (1) because one of the three issues included in Defendant’s conditional plea was not a valid pretrial motion and was therefore not reviewable in a conditional plea appeal, the entire plea was invalid; and (2) therefore, Defendant should be allowed to withdraw his conditional guilty plea. Remanded. View "Matthews v. State" on Justia Law

In 1993, Appellant pled guilty to a second degree sexual assault crime in New Jersey. Appellant later moved to Wyoming. In 2012, the State charged Appellant with failing to register in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. 7-19-302(j) and 7-19-307(a)(d). After a trial, Appellant was convicted of the charge. Appellant appealed, contending that Wyoming’s Sex Offender Registration Act violates the prohibitions against ex post facto laws contained in the state and federal Constitutions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Act does not violate the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution because the Act imposes only a regulatory burden on convicted sex offenders; and (2) there was no merit in Appellant’s claim that the Wyoming Constitution provides greater protection against ex post facto laws than its federal counterpart. View "Kammerer v. State" on Justia Law

In 2011, Appellant was arrested and charged with three crimes. Appellant was on probation for crimes he had committed in 2008 at the time of his arrest, and the State also sought to revoke Appellant’s probation. Appellant and the State entered into a plea agreement, which was never reduced to writing. The district court subsequently sentenced Appellant and revoked his probation. Appellant filed a motion to correct illegal sentence and/or motion for sentence reduction, contending that the sentence imposed was not in accordance with his plea agreement and seeking modification of the sentence to conform to the terms of the plea agreement. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for imposition of an amended sentence, holding that the sentence imposed was not in accord with the plea agreement and was an illegal sentence because it could not be completed in a single stretch or without interruption by another prison sentence. View "Coy v. State" on Justia Law

In 2005, Defendant was arrested and charged with two counts of third-degree sexual assault. In a separate docket, Defendant was charged with two counts of forgery. Defendant pled guilty to the forgery counts and no contest to the sexual assault charges. In 2007, the district court sentenced Defendant and credited him for time served awaiting sentencing. Defendant was released from prison in 2011 but was arrested for probation violation in 2012 in Arkansas. After Defendant was transferred to Wyoming, the district court revoked his probation and imposed the second sexual assault sentence. The court also credited Defendant with time served while awaiting his hearing. Defendant later filed a pro se motion to correct illegal sentence, claiming that he was entitled to a total of 426 days credit for time served. The district court granted the motion in part, awarding him a total of 379 days credit for time served. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly credited Defendant an additional 169 days for time served. View "Tallerdy v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of driving with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of at least 0.08% for a fourth or subsequent time in ten years, a felony. On appeal, Appellant argued that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress the results of his BAC test, claiming that the affidavit supporting the search warrant authorizing his blood to be taken for testing was deficient because it failed to demonstrate probable cause. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the search warrant affidavit did not provide sufficient information for a judicial officer to make an independent judgment that there was probable cause to issue the warrant, and therefore, the BAC test - the fruit of the search - should have been suppressed. View "Snell v. State" on Justia Law