Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Appellant was convicted of first-degree sexual assault and robbery. After losing his appeal, Appellant filed a verified petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that his appellate counsel was ineffective. The district court granted the State's motion to dismiss, concluding that Appellant's claim was procedurally barred pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. 7-14-103(a)(iii) because he raised a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel in his direct appeal, which was decided on the merits. The Supreme Court likewise dismissed the petition, holding (1) where a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel has been raised and decided against the appellant in his direct appeal, he may not raise a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, based upon different allegations, in a petition for post-conviction relief, as the claim is procedurally barred by section 7-14-103(a)(iii); and (2) a stand-alone claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is not cognizable under the post-conviction relief statutes because post-conviction relief is limited to the alleged denial of constitutional rights during the proceedings that resulted in conviction.

A police officer was presented with an emergency situation when, upon entering Appellant Joseph Owens' motel room, he found Appellant convulsing on the floor. The officer subsequently searched Appellant's backpack and the containers found therein in an attempt to aid Appellant and discovered methamphetamine. Appellant subsequently entered a conditional guilty plea to felony possession of methamphetamine. Owens reserved the right to appeal the constitutionality of the search that resulted in discovery of the methamphetamine. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that under the circumstances presented, the State satisfied its burden of establishing specific and articulable facts showing that the search was justified pursuant to the officer's community caretaker function.

Appellant Derrick Brock, the assistant manager at a restaurant, failed to deposit the restaurant's previous two day earnings at the bank, and afterwards, never returned to work. Following a jury trial, Appellant Derrick Brock was convicted of larceny by bailee. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to call investigating officers to testify regarding their investigation; (2) trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to investigate or interview or call key witnesses with possibly exculpatory information; and (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sustaining the prosecution's objection to cross-examination of a witness regarding statements made to the police.

Appellant, Andy Lovato, entered a conditional guilty plea to one count of possession of methamphetamine. Appellant appealed, claiming the district court incorrectly concluded that his right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures was not violated when he was seized by the police. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err when it denied Appellant's motion to suppress evidence because the police had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity justifying briefly detaining Appellant for further investigation; and (2) the police had probable cause to arrest Appellant for interference when a peace officer after he failed to obey one officer's commands to stop and then struggled with the police officers.

Appellant Timothy Shaeffer was convicted of aggravated assault and battery after he waved around a flare gun during an altercation at a bar. On appeal, Appellant claimed he was subject to numerous errors, which affected his right to a fair trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to appoint Appellant new counsel on the second day of trial; (2) the trial court did not violate Appellant's right to self-representation, as Appellant never made an unequivocal request to represent himself; (3) the trial court did not require Appellant to wear excessive physical restraints, and the trial court's failure to not instruct the jury regarding the shackles did not constitute plain error; (4) after Appellant had been deemed competent to proceed, the circumstances at trial were not such that would have required an additional competency evaluation; (5) the trial court did not exhibit judicial bias against Appellant; and (6) the State did not provide the trial court with inappropriate or incorrect information at the sentencing hearing.

Appellant Jeramie Large was charged with six crimes arising from an incident when he stole and crashed a vehicle. Large appealed, claiming (1) his right to a speedy trial was violated and (2) he was denied his right to counsel without being adequately instructed and warned of the dangers of proceeding without counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant was afforded a speedy trial as it occurred without the 180-day time period required by Wyo. R. Crim. P. 48, and any delays did not violate Appellant's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial; and (2) Appellant's right to counsel was not violated as the district court adequately instructed Appellant on the dangers of proceeding without counsel.

Appellant Danny Rodgers was convicted of check fraud, driving while intoxicated, felony identity theft, and two counts of forgery. Rodgers appealed, raising, among other claims, claims of evidentiary insufficiency and a speedy trial violation. The Supreme Court (1) reversed Rodgers' check fraud conviction, holding that there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction under Wyoming law; (2) reversed Rodgers' felony identity theft conviction because the facts did not support the felony conviction as defined by Wyo. Stat. Ann. 6-3-901(c), and ordered entry of a misdemeanor identity theft conviction because the jury's verdict supported Rodgers' conviction for that lesser-included offense; and (3) held that Rodgers' right to a speedy trial under Wyo. R. Crim. P. 48(b) was not violated under the facts of this case. Remanded for resentencing on the conviction of misdemeanor identity theft.

Appellant Mark Garner was convicted on two counts of delivery of a controlled substance after he was arrested for selling methamphetamine to a confidential informant in two controlled buy operations initiated by the Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation. Garner appealed, contending (1) the district court improperly limited cross-examination of the confidential informant, a key prosecution witness; and (2) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admonishing defense counsel, limiting his cross-examination, and issuing a limiting instruction to the jury when defense counsel was cross-examining the confidential informant; and (2) there was ample evidence to support Appellant's convictions.

Marvin Tilley was convicted of six counts of sexual assault committed years previously against four different victims and one count of aggravated burglary against one of the victims. Tilley appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to convict him. At issue on appeal was the credibility of the witnesses and their memories. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient as to the date of the assaults and the fact that the victims did not consent to the sexual acts, (2) there was no basis to question the credibility determinations of the jury, and (3) therefore, the evidence was sufficient to support Tilley's convictions.

John Eckdahl was sentenced following his conviction of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. Just over a year later, Eckdahl filed a motion to modify his sentence. The district court denied the motion as untimely pursuant to Wyo. R. Crim. P. 35(b), which allows a motion for sentence modification within one year after the sentence is imposed. Eckdahl did not appeal the denial of his motion but instead filed a petition for reconsideration, followed by another motion to reduce his sentence. The district court entered an order denying both the petition for reconsideration and the pending motion for sentence reduction. The Supreme Court dismissed Eckdahl's appeal, holding that it lacked jurisdiction because Eckdahl's motions for sentence reduction were untimely and Eckdahl's petitions for reconsideration were not authorized under Wyoming law.