Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

In a car accident resulting in the death of a motorcyclist, the driver, Yvonne Patrice Kessel, was convicted of one count of aggravated vehicular homicide. The State of Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that Kessel’s proposed jury instruction, which suggested that the jury could consider the victim’s actions when determining proximate cause, was not a proper theory of defense. The Court found that Kessel was essentially arguing that the State failed to prove the proximate cause element of the charged offense, which it deemed a "claim of innocence" or "failure of proof" defense not warranting a special theory of defense instruction. The Court also ruled that the jury had been adequately instructed on the concept of proximate cause and that the instructions allowed both parties to argue their respective theories of the case. Thus, the Court concluded that the lower court did not abuse its discretion by denying Kessel’s proposed instruction. View "Kessel v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence under Wyo. R. Crim. P. 35(a), holding that the district court did not err in concluding that Defendant's motion was barred by res judicata.Defendant was convicted of two counts of aggravated vehicular homicide and sentenced to twelve to twenty years in prison on each count, to be served consecutively. After unsuccessfully moving in 2015 to correct an illegal sentence, in 2022 Defendant filed the current motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that his consecutive sentences were illegal because they exceeded the twenty-year statutory maximum sentence for aggravated vehicular homicide. The district court denied the motion on res judicata grounds. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Defendant already raised and litigated the claim presented in his current motion, the district court did not err in denying the Rule 35(a) motion on res judicata grounds. View "Tucker v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion in his criminal case for the return of property seized by law enforcement during the underlying criminal investigation, holding that remand was required.Defendant pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and battery. Several months after he was sentenced Defendant filed a motion requesting suppression of items used as evidence in his case. The district court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction over Defendant's motion in the criminal case because a post-conviction motion for return of property is a civil matter. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred in declaring that it did not have jurisdiction to consider Defendant's motion for return of his property, nor did it have the legal authority to order return of the property because the motion was authorized by Wyo. R. Crim. P. 41(d), and the court should have received evidence to determine whether Defendant was entitled to return of the property. View "Bunten v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence, holding that the district court did not err in ruling that res judicata barred Defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence.Defendant was convicted of second-degree abuse of a minor and soliciting a minor to engage in sexual relations and sentenced to twenty years as to the sexual abuse conviction and to four to five years on the solicitation conviction, to be served consecutively. Defendant later filed a pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that the acts underlying his conviction were one continuous act and that his consecutive sentences violated double jeopardy protections. The district court denied relief ruling that res judicata barred the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a motion to correct an illegal sentence can be subject to res judicata; and (2) the interests of res judictata in finality and avoiding repetitive litigation were served in this case. View "Peterson v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court denying Appellant's motion to correct an illegal sentence, holding that the district court correctly concluded that Appellant was not entitled to credit for time spent on probation when he was resentenced in a probation revocation proceeding.Defendant admitted to the State's allegations of probation violations, and his probation was revoked and sentence reinstated. Defendant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, claiming that he was entitled to credit for time spent on supervised probation, inclusive of inpatient substance abuse treatment and participation in Treatment Court. The district court denied the motion. Defendant subsequently moved both a second and third time to correct an illegal sentence, without success. Defendant appealed the district court order denying his first request to correct an illegal sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly denied the motion. View "Stevenson v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for interference with a peace officer, holding that the district court did not violate Defendant's due process rights by conducting a hearing under Asch v. State, 62 P.3d 945 (Wyo. 2003), in Defendant's absence after he refused to attend the hearing.Defendant, who was serving three consecutive life sentences at the Wyoming State Penitentiary, was charged with interference with a peace officer. Before the scheduled trial date, the State moved to require Defendant to be restrained during trial. The district court conducted an Asch hearing without Defendant and decided to impose restraints at trial. Defendant was convicted of one count of felony interference with a peace officer. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant waived any right he had to be present at the Asch hearing by knowingly and voluntarily failing to appear at the hearing due to circumstances within his control. View "Castellanos v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of failing to notify law enforcement of a change in his residential address, holding that the State presented sufficient evidence at trial to support the conviction.After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of two violations of the Sex Offender Registration Act for failing to notify law enforcement of a change in his residential address. Defendant appealed, arguing that there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to support his conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence was clearly sufficient to show that Defendant was required and failed to register two residential addresses. View "Martens v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion for sentence reduction, holding that the district court erred in ruling that the motion was untimely but that the error was harmless.After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of several crimes, including aggravated burglary. The court sentenced Defendant to a total of twelve to twenty years followed by seven years of probation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court erred in ruling that Defendant's motion for sentence reduction was untimely, but the error was harmless; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motion for sentence reduction. View "Buckingham v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of four counts of sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree soliciting to engage in illicit sexual relations, attempt to commit sexual abuse o a minor in the second degree, and battery, holding that there was no abuse of discretion or cumulative error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting hearsay evidence in violation of Wyo. R. Evid. 802; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence in violation of Wyo. R. Evid. 403; and (3) because there was no error, there was no basis for Defendant's claim that evidentiary errors cumulatively deprived him of a fair trial. View "Munda v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Appellant's petition filed under the Post-Conviction Determination of Factual Innocence Act alleging that he was factually innocent of three convictions because the victim recanted her trial testimony, holding that the district court did not clearly err.After he was convicted of five counts of sexual assault and sexual abuse of a minor involving two victims Appellant petitioned the district court asserting that he was factually innocent based on the victim's recantation. After a hearing, the district court found that Appellant did not offer clear and convincing evidence of his innocence and denied the petition on the merits. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no basis for this Court to disturb the district court's ruling. View "Shawn v. State" on Justia Law