Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of felony driving while under the influence of alcohol. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying in part a pretrial discovery request made by Appellant; (2) the district court did not violate Appellant’s constitutional right to confrontation when the State’s expert witness testified as to the operation, maintenance, and accuracy of the breath alcohol test machine used in this case; and (3) Appellant’s trial counsel was not ineffective in not calling an expert witness to testify as to the effect of diabetes on the results of a breath alcohol test. View "Anderson v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant entered Alford pleas to promoting prostitution, conspiracy to commit first degree sexual assault, and aggravated assault and battery on a pregnant woman. The victim in this case was Defendant’s girlfriend. The district court imposed suspended sentences of incarceration and ten years probation to run consecutively with a term of imprisonment for the conspiracy charge. One of the conditions of Defendant’s probation was that Defendant have no contact with the victim of the offense or the minor children of the victim and Defendant. Defendant appealed, arguing that the “no contact” condition of his probation was not reasonably related to his rehabilitation and was an encroachment upon his fundamental right to raise his children. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the “no contact” condition of probation in Defendant’s sentencing. View "Perkins 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

When Mother and Father divorced, Mother was awarded primary custody of the parties’ child. Father later field a petition for modification of custody and time-sharing. The district court found there had been a substantial change of circumstances and that it was in the child’s best interest for Father to be awarded custody. Mother appealed, claiming (1) the district court did not have jurisdiction over Father’s petition for modification of custody due to Father’s failure to comply with the statutory pleading requirements; (2) her due process right was violated when default was improperly entered against her; and (3) the district court abused its discretion in entering a child support order due to its failure to comply with statutory child support requirements. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over Father’s petition; (2) Mother was given the process she was due; and (3) the district court correctly ruled on the child support issue. View "Brush v. Davis" 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