Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

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

Appellee was sexually assaulted by a county detention officer while she was an inmate at the county detention center. Appellee filed claims under the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act against the officer, the county sheriff, and the county board of commissioners for damages stemming from this assault. The sheriff, county, and county commissioners were the Appellants in these proceedings. The trial court denied the sheriff's and the county's motions for summary judgment on the claims against the sheriff for negligent supervision and training and on the sheriff's motion for qualified immunity and also denied the county's and board's motions as to statutorily imposed liability. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the record did not support the trial court's ruling that the sheriff was not entitled to assert the defense of qualified immunity; and (2) based on the holding that the sheriff was entitled to qualified immunity, the ruling against the county and the board must also be reversed. View "Uinta County v. Pennington" 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

Ricky D. Miller challenged a hearing examiner's order upholding his per se driver's license suspension. In his only issue, Miller argued that his breath test was invalid because Corporal Karr's (the test administrator) operator permit for the test equipment was not valid. Miller argued that the evidence established, and the OAH found, that Corporal Karr did not properly maintain her certification and should have been decertified. Considering the applicable statues and Wyoming's relevant case law under the facts of this case, the Supreme Court concluded that under the DOH's Rules and Regulations for Chemical Analysis for Alcohol Testing, Chapter IV, Section 4, the operator's permit in this case was valid because the state agency had not deemed otherwise and had not notified the permittee. "Certainly, there is tension between the quoted rule and the DOH rule . . . However, we conclude that section 4 is controlling, as suggested by this Court in Miller's earlier appeal." The hearing examiner's decision was affirmed, and Miller's per se driver's license suspension stood.

Appellant Billie Colleen Johnson was convicted of two counts of delivery of methamphetamine. On appeal, she claimed that the district court abused its discretion when it allowed the Confidential Informant (CI) to testify, although Appellant was not given the CI’s telephone number. She also argued that the district court violated her constitutional rights when it considered the appellant’s failure to take responsibility for her criminal activity at sentencing. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant Steve Edward Dobbins pled no contest to one count of sexual assault in the first degree. In this consolidated appeal, Defendant contended that the district court should have permitted him to withdraw his plea, both before and after sentencing. Specifically, he complained that he should have been allowed to withdraw his plea of no contest prior to being sentenced because he did not have close assistance of counsel and that he had a fair and just reason to withdraw his plea. Furthermore, Defendant argued that he should have been allowed to withdraw his plea of no contest after sentencing because the district court failed to properly advise him as required by W.R.Cr.P. 11, resulting in manifest injustice. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the denial of both of Defendant's motions to withdraw his no contest plea, and affirmed the judgment and sentence.

Defendant-Appellant Gary Carter was tried and convicted by a jury of a single felony charge of possessing, with intent to deliver, two grams of methamphetamine. The court sentenced Defendant to twelve to fifteen years in the Wyoming State Penitentiary. On appeal, Defendant contended that plain error occurred when the prosecutor elicited expert witness testimony that Defendant was guilty of being a drug dealer. Furthermore, Defendant alleged that the prosecutor committed misconduct when arguing facts not in evidence during closing argument. Upon review of the record, the Supreme Court concluded that when considered in conjunction with the expert witness testimony, the "troublesome comments" made during closing presented a reasonable probability that Defendant's right to a fair trial was affected: "[t]he information, while subtle, came directly from the prosecutor and did more than insinuate." The Court remanded the case for a new trial.