Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Appellant was adjudicated delinquent in juvenile court. Based on the same incident, Appellant was later convicted on a criminal charge. Appellant appealed, asserting that the criminal prosecution violated his constitutional right not to be placed twice in jeopardy. The Supreme Court reversed Appellant's criminal conviction of sexual abuse of a minor in the second degree, holding (1) Appellant satisfied all of the requirements necessary to establish plain error, as the trial court clearly and obviously transgressed the rule of law prohibiting subsequent criminal prosecution and punishment, and (2) the prohibited criminal conviction and punishment adversely affected Appellant's substantial rights and resulted in material prejudice to him. View "Haynes v. State" on Justia Law

After being arrested for driving while under the influence, Appellant submitted a request for contested case hearing before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) asking the OAH to rule that the procedure used by the arresting officer to conduct the chemical breath test upon which his arrest was based did not comply with Wyo. Stat. Ann. 31-6-105(a) and, therefore, the proposed suspension of his driver's license must be vacated. The OAH hearing examiner upheld the suspension. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) it was proper for OAH to apply a presumption that the underlying chemical test result was valid; and (2) Appellant did not present any evidence at the administrative hearing to rebut the presumption that the breath test results were accurate and failed to meet the requirements of Wyo. R. App. P. 12.08 that would allow the Supreme Court to order the additional evidence to be taken before the agency. View "Romsa v. State ex rel. Wyo. Dep't of Transp." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted on six felony charges involving sexual assault. The district court subsequently sentenced him to consecutive prison sentences totaling thirty to fifty years. The Supreme Court affirmed. Defendant subsequently filed motions for sentence reduction, one through counsel and one pro se. In the first motion, Defendant asserted sentence reduction was appropriate based upon his rehabilitation efforts. In his second motion, he asserted reduction was also appropriate because he was going blind in both eyes and his condition could be reversed only if he was able to seek outside medical attention. The district court denied both motions. Defendant appealed, claiming the district court erred when it denied motions without considering his change of circumstances. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motions for sentence reduction. View "Boucher v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant entered an Alford plea to three counts of first degree sexual abuse of a minor and one count of third degree sexual abuse of a minor. The Alford plea allowed Defendant to enter a guilty plea without allocuting or otherwise admitting his participation in the crimes. During Defendant's sentencing hearing, the district court cited to a number of factors that influenced the court's sentencing decision and then commented on Defendant's flippancy and lack of remorse before announcing its decision. Defendant challenged the sentence, contending that the district court violated his constitutional right against self incrimination by using his silence as evidence of a lack of remorse. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant did not establish that the district court inferred a lack of remorse based on his silence, and therefore, the question of whether such an inference would infringe on a Defendant's right against self incrimination did not need to be addressed. View "Joreski v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury-waived trial, Appellant was convicted for unlawful possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance. Appellant appealed, contending (1) he was denied effective assistance of counsel, and (2) the trial court improperly admitted lay opinion testimony concerning his level of intoxication. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant was not denied effective assistance of trial counsel; and (2) the testimony of two bartenders regarding Appellant's level of intoxication was properly admitted and considered by the trial court, as the testimony was based on the bartenders' observations of Appellant and was helpful to the fact-finder's determination of whether Appellant had the requisite intent. View "Mickelson v. State" on Justia Law

This appeal presented a question of first impression whether a criminal defendant's judgment of conviction upon his plea of guilt to the felony of third degree sexual abuse of a minor must be set aside and he be permitted to plead anew because the district court failed to comply with Wyo. Stat. Ann. 7-11-507, which provides that a court must advise a defendant seeking to plead guilty to a felony that federal law disqualifies felons from possessing firearms, even though the defendant does not suggest that receiving the advisement would have led him to plead differently. The Supreme Court set aside Defendant's judgment of conviction in this case and remanded with directions that he be permitted to plead anew, holding that the advisement in section 7-11-507 is required, and Wyo. R. Crim. P. 32(b)(1)(E) mandates that the judgment of conviction upon Defendant's plea of guilty must include that advisement. View "Starrett v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant entered a plea of no contest to one misdemeanor count of reckless endangerment. He was sentenced to one year in jail and was ordered to pay restitution to the two victims of his crime. On appeal, Appellant claimed that the district court abused is discretion when it ordered that Appellant pay a total of $335,387 in restitution and that it acted unlawfully when it ordered that Appellant make a "bona fide effort" to pay the restitution within five years. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the district court's order regarding the amount of restitution; (2) vacated the five-year pay off requirement, holding that the court did not have the authority to impose a deadline on when the restitution must be paid; and (3) affirmed the remainder of Appellant's sentence. View "Smith v. State" on Justia Law

After conditionally pleading guilty to possession with intent to deliver marijuana, Appellant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence discovered during a search of his vehicle. Appellant maintained that he was unconstitutionally detained for a drug dog sniff after a traffic stop and that the subsequent search of his vehicle was illegal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trooper had reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity to justify detaining Appellant so the trooper's drug dog could walk around the rental car for a free air sniff; and (2) the district court correctly ruled that the trooper had probable cause to search Appellant's vehicle, and his constitutional rights were not violated. View "Dimino v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of one count of first-degree sexual abuse of a minor and eight counts of second-degree sexual abuse of a minor. In this appeal, Appellant raised eight issues where he claimed there was an error in his trial. The Supreme Court reversed Appellant's convictions and remanded for a new trial, holding (1) the district court's decision finding the victim was competent to testify was clearly erroneous, as there was no evidence to support the conclusion that the victim understood the obligation to tell the truth while testifying, and the error was not harmless; (2) the admission of evidence that Appellant visited several pornographic websites on the Internet and admission of photos of the victim and his brother engaging in innocent activities in the nude, pursuant to Wyo. R. Evid. 404(b), was prejudicial error; (3) the district court's statement to the jury that they would hear about child pornography websites constituted plain error; and (4) plain error occurred when the interviewer expressed his opinion that Appellant was lying during the interview. View "Mersereau v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant pled guilty to six counts of second-degree sexual assault in 2000 and was sentenced to six consecutive life terms. In this appeal, Appellant, acting pro se, challenged the district court's denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence under Wyo. R. Crim. P. 35(a). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court correctly concluded that Appellant's claims of illegal sentence were barred by the doctrine of res judicata; and (2) Appellant's claims that his sentence was illegal due to alleged inaccuracies in the presentence investigation report and that the sentencing court erred in denying correction of factual inaccuracies in the presentence investigation report were barred by res judicata. View "Deloge v. State" on Justia Law