Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

In 2012, Defendant entered a conditional plea of guilty to third degree sexual assault in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. 6-2-304(a)(i), which was repealed in 2007. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in concluding that the State could prosecute him under section 6-2-304(a)(i) because the statute had been repealed for four years before he was charged and because the repealing legislation did not include a saving clause that kept section 6-2-304(a)(i) viable with respect to crimes committed before its repeal. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to dismiss and affirmed the judgment and sentence, holding that Wyoming’s general saving statute permitted the State to prosecute Defendant for third degree sexual assault under section 6-2-304(a)(i) for conduct which preceded its repeal by more than four years. View "Roush v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of one count of felony child abuse. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not violate Defendant’s right to confrontation by allegedly limiting the cross-examination of the victim regarding inappropriate sexual contact between the victim and his sister because the district court did not make a ruling on the issue; and (2) did not abuse its discretion by not granting Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal because there was sufficient evidence such that a jury could return a guilty verdict. View "Swan v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of aggravated assault by threatening to use a drawn deadly weapon. On appeal, Appellant argued, among other things, that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance for failing to call an expert witness. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict; (2) Appellant did not receive constitutionally effective counsel, and, under the circumstances, a reasonable probability existed that, but for trial counsel’s deficient performance, the outcome would have been different; and (3) the jury was improperly instructed on self defense. View "Cooper v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant pled guilty to the federal charge of being a felon in possession of firearms. Thereafter, Appellant pled guilty at the state level to aiding and abetting burglary. The federal court sentenced Appellant to a term of imprisonment, and the state district court sentenced Appellant to a term of imprisonment to run concurrently with the federal sentence. Thereafter, Appellant filed an appeal, which he voluntarily dismissed, and two successive motions for sentence reduction, which the state district court denied and Appellant did not appeal. Appellant subsequently filed a motion to correct and illegal sentence, which the district court denied. This appeal concerned Appellant’s second motion to correct an illegal sentence. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the doctrine of res judicata applied to bar Appellant’s claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that res judicata barred review of Appellant’s claim because he did not take advantage of the opportunity to raise it multiple times before. View "Dax v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant pleaded guilty to two counts of attempted voluntary manslaughter pursuant to a plea agreement and was sentenced to two consecutive terms of incarceration of seventeen to twenty years. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding (1) the district court did not err in accepting Appellant’s guilty pleas in exchange for the plea agreement, as the plea agreement and the guilty pleas were valid; and (2) the district court did not err in sentencing Appellant in accordance with the terms of the plea agreement and in the range provided by statute. View "Noel v. State" on Justia Law

In 2004, Appellant pled guilty to three counts of felony identity theft. The district court imposed a sentence of incarceration that it suspended in favor of eight years probation. In 2008 and 2009, the State filed three petitions to revoke Appellant’s probation, and each time, the district court revoked and reinstated probation. In 2011, the State filed a fourth petition to revoke. The district court granted the petition and imposed the underlying sentence of five to nine years incarceration. Appellant did not timely appeal from the district court’s order revoking probation and imposing sentence. However, after the district court found that counsel was ineffective in failing to follow Appellant’s instruction to file an appeal, the Supreme Court restored the appeal from the probation revocation. The Supreme Court subsequently affirmed the district court’s order revoking probation, holding that the evidence supported the district court’s decision to revoke Appellant’s probation, and the decision was not an abuse of discretion. View "Allaback v. State" on Justia Law

After a trial, Defendant was convicted of six counts of sexual abuse of a minor in the third degree and one count of sexual abuse of a minor in the second degree. During trial, Defendant called a witness who opined about Defendant’s good character when interacting with children. On cross-examination, the trial court allowed the prosecutor to ask the witness if she knew Defendant had two prior convictions for sexually assaulting children. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Defendant opened the door to character evidence under Wyo. R. Evid. 404(a)(1) and Wyo. R. Evid. 405(a), and the State’s presentation of rebuttal character evidence did not violate Defendant’s constitutional right to present a defense. View "McDowell v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of one count of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding to overrule Defendant’s objection to the court’s admission of certain testimony, as the evidence was not, as Defendant alleged, uncharged misconduct in violation of Wyo. R. Evid. 404(b); (2) the prosecutor did not commit misconduct during closing argument; and (3) the district court did not err in failing to instruct the jury in accordance with the Court’s decision in Eagan v. State. View "Gonzalez-Ochoa v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of felony driving while under the influence of alcohol. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying in part a pretrial discovery request made by Appellant; (2) the district court did not violate Appellant’s constitutional right to confrontation when the State’s expert witness testified as to the operation, maintenance, and accuracy of the breath alcohol test machine used in this case; and (3) Appellant’s trial counsel was not ineffective in not calling an expert witness to testify as to the effect of diabetes on the results of a breath alcohol test. View "Anderson v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant entered Alford pleas to promoting prostitution, conspiracy to commit first degree sexual assault, and aggravated assault and battery on a pregnant woman. The victim in this case was Defendant’s girlfriend. The district court imposed suspended sentences of incarceration and ten years probation to run consecutively with a term of imprisonment for the conspiracy charge. One of the conditions of Defendant’s probation was that Defendant have no contact with the victim of the offense or the minor children of the victim and Defendant. Defendant appealed, arguing that the “no contact” condition of his probation was not reasonably related to his rehabilitation and was an encroachment upon his fundamental right to raise his children. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the “no contact” condition of probation in Defendant’s sentencing. View "Perkins v. State" on Justia Law