Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

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

After a bench trial, Appellant was convicted of indirect criminal contempt, a common law crime, for failure to comply with an injunction and a nunc pro tunc amendment that allowed the county to enter Appellant's property and remove vehicles and trailers that violated county zoning ordinances. Appellant was sentenced to six months in the county jail, suspended in favor of unsupervised probation. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed Appellant's conviction, holding that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to prove willful disobedience of a reasonably specific court order beyond a reasonable doubt. Remanded to the district court with directions to vacate its judgment and sentence. View "Weidt v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of first degree sexual assault on a physically helpless woman. Appellant was sentenced to not less than seven nor more than twenty-two years confinement. On appeal, Defendant challenged the admission of certain evidence during trial and statements made by the prosecutor during rebuttal closing argument. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting statements Appellant made to police under Wyo. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(A); and (2) the prosecuting attorney did not make statements in rebuttal closing argument that were improper and prejudicial by arguing facts not in evidence. View "Leach v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charge of conspiracy to deliver methamphetamine. After the district court accepted the plea and scheduled a sentencing hearing, Appellant retained new counsel, who filed a motion to withdraw the plea. In support of the motion, counsel asserted, among other things, that a fair and just reason existed for allowing the withdrawal because Appellant asserted his innocence. The district court denied the motion after a hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court reasonably concluded that Appellant's assertion of innocence did not constitute a fair and just reason for allowing him to withdraw his plea. View "Russell v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant pled guilty to conspiracy to deliver methamphetamine. The district court sentenced Appellant to fifteen to twenty years imprisonment and recommended that Appellant complete intensive treatment for substance abuse. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment and sentence. Appellant subsequently filed a timely motion for a sentence reduction, which was denied. Thereafter, Appellant filed a second motion seeking to modify his sentence. The district court denied the motion on the grounds of untimeliness. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant's appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Appellant's motion was not filed within the required one-year time period under the relevant statute. View "Gomez v. State" on Justia Law