Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The district court appointed Attorney to represent an indigent parent in a termination of parental rights action filed by the Wyoming Department of Family Services (DFS). State law required DFS to pay for the costs of the action, including the attorney's fee for the indigent parent. After a jury trial, the parent's parental rights were terminated. Several months later, Attorney filed a motion for an order approving payment of his attorney's fees in his representation of the parent. The district court awarded Attorney a fifty percent reduction from the fees sought in the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed the fee reduction, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by reducing Attorney's fee application by fifty percent. View "Tolin v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of taking a controlled substance into a jail. Defendant appealed, contending (1) the district court erred by seating an unqualified juror; and (2) the court erred in sentencing by not giving him full credit for time spent in presentence incarceration. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the district court (1) did not err in seating the jury, as the disputed juror was a resident of the relevant county for the required time period preceding the jury selection and return, and therefore, the juror was qualified; and (2) properly credited Defendant for presentence confinement from the time when Defendant's first sentence expired to the time when the court entered sentence on Defendant's drug-related conviction. View "Lake v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of felony larceny after taking a pickup truck without the owner's permission. After the verdict was accepted, Appellant moved for a new trial, alleging that jurors or potential jurors overheard conversations between the State's witnesses, and that the information they overheard tainted and prejudiced them. The district court denied the motion, finding that Appellant had waived his right to ask for a new trial by failing to bring the issue to the court's attention during trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant's motion for a new trial on the ground that he waived his challenge by failing to raise it during trial; and (2) there was sufficient evidence of Appellant's intent to deprive the owner of the truck of that property as required for a conviction of larceny. View "Pena v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant pled no contest to first-degree sexual abuse of a minor. The district court imposed a penitentiary sentence of not less than fifteen nor more than twenty years. Approximately one year after his conviction, Defendant filed a pro se motion for a reduction of his sentence, asserting that a sentence reduction was warranted by his good behavior in prison and by his inability to assist his wife, who suffered from multiple sclerosis, and his daughter. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the sentence Defendant received as a result of his plea deal was exceptionally reasonable under the circumstances. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the sentence reduction motion, where it was reasonable for the district court to conclude that Defendant's attendance of a common course of first-year prison programs was only a relatively small first step toward rehabilitation. View "Conkle v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with a felony DUI, his fourth, after a law enforcement officer was informed that Defendant had been drinking and was about to drive his vehicle. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, claiming that his stop and arrest were unconstitutional because the officer's actions were based upon a tip from an unidentified informant. The motion was denied, and Defendant was found guilty after a jury trial. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding (1) the district court properly denied Defendant's motion to suppress, where the totality of the circumstances in this case created reasonable suspicion that Defendant was committing a crime and because the informant was not anonymous; and (2) there was substantial evidence for a jury to convict Defendant at trial. View "Venegas v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of sexual exploitation of a child. Defendant appealed, contending (1) the district court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal for lack of sufficient evidence, and (2) the jury's verdict was tainted by prosecutorial misconduct. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction, holding (1) sufficient evidence existed for the case to be submitted to the jury, and therefore, the district court correctly denied Defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal and allowed the jury to ultimately determine whether the State had proved his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; and (2) the prosecutor did not engage in impermissible misconduct. View "Craft v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of making a false written statement to obtain property and was sentenced to a two to five year period of incarceration. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. Appellant later filed a motion entitled "Motion to Execute Sentence." The district court denied the motion. Appellant appealed, arguing that the district court's sentence should be ordered to be executed to give effect to subsequent sentences in other jurisdictions and to avoid an illegal sentence. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant's appeal, holding that the district court was without jurisdiction to consider Appellant's motion, as it was not a motion to correct an illegal sentence, and it was not a motion otherwise expressly provided for by rule or statute. Consequently, the Court was without jurisdiction to consider this appeal. View "Kurtenbach v. State" on Justia Law

In 1982, Appellant pled guilty to aggravated robbery, among other crimes, in both Sweetwater and Uinta Counties. In subsequently federal court proceedings, the convictions in both counties were set aside. In the following state court proceedings, Appellant once again pled guilty to the charges. Upon resentencing in 1989, Appellant was sentenced to forty-five to fifty years for the Uinta County aggravated robbery charge. After serving thirty years in prison, Appellant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence. Appellant argued that the aggravated robbery statute, amended in 1983, applied retroactively, and thus, his forty-five to fifty year sentence was illegal because it exceeded the new statutory maximum. The district court granted the motion and reduced Appellant's sentence in the Uinta County aggravated robbery charge. On appeal, Appellant challenged various aspects of the district court's rulings on his motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) ruling that Appellant did not have the constitutional right to be present at the hearing in which the district court considered his motion and reduced his sentence; and (2) modifying Appellant's sentence without allowing him to withdraw the guilty plea. View "Osborn v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of one count of sexual abuse of a minor in the second degree. Appellant appealed, contending (1) the victim was incompetent to testify, and (2) the district court improperly denied his motion for judgment of acquittal because there was no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant had sexual contact with the victim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the victim satisfied the five-part test for witness competency, and the district court was not clearly erroneous in determining that she was competent to testify; and (2) the State presented sufficient evidence to show that Defendant engaged in sexual contract with the victim, and thus, the district court properly denied Appellant's motion for judgment of acquittal. View "Hutchinson v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant pled guilty to three counts of illegal drug possession, two counts being felonies, at arraignment. The district court found that a factual basis existed for all three counts but ordered a presentence investigation without accepting any of the pleas or adjudicating guilt. After the sentencing hearing, the district court deferred further proceedings without adjudicating guilt on both of the felonies pursuant to Wyo. Stat. 35-7-1037. The State filed a motion to reconsider. The district court then withdrew one of the deferrals, accepted Appellant's guilty plea on one count, and proceeded to sentencing. A judgment and sentence was subsequently filed, providing (1) section 35-7-1037 does not authorize a court to order deferral of multiple counts of an information or indictment, and (2) the court erred in deferring entry of conviction and sentence in both felony counts. Appellant challenged the order on the State's motion to reconsider. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the State's motion to reconsider was filed and heard before judgment was entered and was not, therefore, a nullity; and (2) the motion to consider was not deemed denied under Wyo. R. Crim. P. 6(c)(2). View "McWilliams v. State" on Justia Law