Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

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

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