Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial in 1982, Defendant was found guilty of aggravated robbery and unauthorized use of a vehicle. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions on appeal. Before Defendant began serving his Wyoming sentence, he was released to federal authorities to serve a sentence on unrelated federal charges. In 1988, Defendant was returned to Wyoming to begin serving his Wyoming sentence. In 2013, Defendant filed a petition to correct sentence, arguing, among other things, that his sentence was illegal because he was not given credit for time served in the federal facility and because the sentence was disproportionate to the severity of his crime. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant’s claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata because Defendant had multiple opportunities to assert his current sentencing claims and prosecute appeals related to those claims, and he offered no acceptable justification for his failure to do so. View "Gee v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant entered conditional pleas of guilty to possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver and conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance. Defendant appealed the district court’s denial of her motion to suppress, arguing that marijuana evidence discovered in her vehicle following a traffic stop was the product of an unlawful detention. Specifically, Defendant argued that her detention was unreasonable because the questioning of Defendant was not tailored to the traffic stop and was not supported by a reasonable suspicion that a crime was being committed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, under the totality of the circumstances, the questioning and detention of Defendant were reasonable and did not violate Wyo. Const. art. I, 4. View "Klomliam v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was charged and convicted of felony driving while under the influence of alcohol, reckless driving, driving with a suspended license, and driving without an interlock device. On appeal, Appellant argued (1) his constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated because he spent 332 days incarcerated after he was arrested and before his trial began, and (2) the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support the reckless driving conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) although the delay between Appellant’s arrest and trial was approximately eleven months, Appellant’s right to a speedy trial was not violated; and (2) the State presented sufficient evidence to support Appellant’s conviction for reckless driving. View "Mascarenas v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant pleaded guilty to two counts of failure to register as a sex offender. The district court sentenced Appellant to concurrent sentences of two to four and four to six years but suspended the sentences and imposed eight years probation. After Appellant violated the terms of his probation, the district court revoked Appellant’s probation and reimposed the suspended sentence. Appellant subsequently pled guilty to escape and was sentenced to three to seven years suspended in favor of four years probation to be served consecutively to the separate reimposed sentence. Thereafter, Appellant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that the district court was without the authority to “mix a sentence of imprisonment and probation.” The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it sentenced Appellant to a period of imprisonment followed by a period of probation. View "Askin v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of several criminal offenses, including attempted second-degree murder. The district court sentenced Appellant to thirty to forty years for the attempted murder conviction with lesser sentences to run concurrently. The district court subsequently denied Appellant's motion for sentence reduction and Appellant's ensuing motion for reconsideration. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Appellant's motions, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant's motion for reduction of sentence; (2) the district court did not violate Appellant's due process rights by denying Appellant's motion to reconsider a sentence reduction; and (2) the State did not commit prosecutorial misconduct by misstating facts in its traverse to Appellant's motion for reduction of sentence. View "Sanchez v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant entered Alford pleas to two felony counts of obtaining public welfare benefits by misrepresentation. Appellant initially pled not guilty to the charges. Appellant appealed, arguing, among other things, that the district court erred when it failed to advise her that a guilty plea to the felonies with which she was charged could result in the loss of her right to possess firearms and her ability to be employed in professions that require carrying and using firearms. The Supreme Court reversed Appellant's conviction and remanded with instructions to reinstate her not guilty plea because the district court did not provide the required statutory firearms advisement when Appellant changed her plea. View "McEwan v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of attempted first-degree murder, kidnapping, and aggravated assault and battery after he attacked the victim and hit her in the face and body with a sledgehammer. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of Appellant's previous violent behavior against the victim; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it allowed a transcript of a telephone conversation between Appellant and the victim to be reviewed by the jury while the recording was being played at trial; and (3) Appellant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel because defense counsel requested a continuance and waived Appellant's right to a speedy trial. View "King v. State" on Justia Law

After his conviction, Appellant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. After Appellant was sentenced, the State successfully filed a motion to correct Appellant's sentence, which was illegal, by increasing the maximum term by three months. Appellant later filed successive motions to reduce his sentence, both of which were denied. Thereafter, Appellant filed a motion to correct illegal sentence, arguing that his original sentence was illegal and asserting that his sentence had been increased without notice or an opportunity to be heard in violation of his constitutional rights. The district court set aside the order increasing Appellant's sentence and reinstated Appellant's original sentence. The Supreme Court vacated Appellant's sentence, concluding that while the increased sentence was correctly set aside, the original sentence was illegal and could not be reimposed. On remand, Appellant raised a speedy sentencing issue. The district court denied relief with respect to the speedy sentencing issue and imposed a new sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed the amended judgment and sentence, holding (1) there was no violation of Appellant's right to a speedy trial; (2) Appellant's correct sentence was legal; and (3) Appellant's double jeopardy rights were not violated when his sentence was increased by three months after he had begun serving it. View "Patterson v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of violating Wyo. Stat. Ann. 6-2-303(a)(vi) and 6-2-303(a)(viii), each proscribing, in the disjunctive, sexual assault in the second degree. The district court sentenced Appellant to concurrent sentences of not less than three nor more than five years incarceration. The Supreme Court affirmed in all respects excepting the propriety of permitting two convictions to stand, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to establish Appellant was in a position of authority as required by section 6-2-303(a)(vi); (2) the prosecutor did not engage in prosecutorial misconduct; and (3) the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy required that the Court vacate one of the two convictions under disjunctive provisions of one statute when both convictions rested upon the same criminal act. Remanded for entry of a new judgment and sentence convicting Defendant of one violation of section 6-2-303 and imposing one sentence. View "Solis v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of felony possession of cocaine and misdemeanor possession of marijuana. Defendant appealed, contending that the trial court erred in refusing his request to introduce Chauncey Swain's out-of-court statements that the cocaine belonged to him under the "statement against interest" exception to the hearsay rule. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Swain's statements were properly excluded as inadmissible hearsay where the district court properly weighed the factors and concluded that Defendant did not present sufficient corroborating circumstances to establish the trustworthiness of Swain's statements under Wyo. R. Evid. 804(b)(3). View "Moore v. State" on Justia Law