Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Appellant pled no contest to one felony count of aggravated assault and battery and one count of misdemeanor battery. Appellant appealed, claiming that he should be permitted to withdraw his plea because he was not properly advised. Specifically, Appellant claimed that the district court erred in failing to advise him at arraignment of the potential loss of firearm rights and any impact that loss might have on employment in occupations that require the use of a firearm, as required by Wyo. Stat. Ann. 7-11-507. The State argued that firearms advisements not be required for Defendants with prior convictions that disqualify them from possessing firearms under federal law. The Supreme Court set Appellant's conviction aside, holding that the district court erred in failing to advise Appellant of the potential loss of his firearms rights under federal law, as section 7-11-507 applies to all defendants facing a charge that may, under federal law, result in loss of firearms rights and employment requiring possession of a firearm. View "Balderson v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of one count of obtaining property by false pretenses and one count of wrongful disposing of that property. Appellant was sentenced to terms of imprisonment on each count, to be served consecutively. On appeal, Appellant contended, among other things, that the two criminal counts should have merged for purposes of sentencing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the "same elements" test shall henceforth serve as the sole test for evaluating sentencing merger questions, and the "same facts or evidence test" is overruled; (2) sufficient evidence supported Appellant's conviction for obtaining property by false pretenses; and (3) the district court did not err in denying Appellant's motion to merge sentences. View "Sweets v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant pled no contest to one count of felony property destruction pursuant to a plea agreement. In accordance with the plea agreement, Appellant received first offender treatment and was placed on supervised probation for five years. Appellant appealed, challenging the district court's order. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant's appeal where (1) Appellant's brief failed to present any valid contentions supported by cogent argument or pertinent authority; and (2) to the extent the Court was able to guess at the nature of Appellant's claims, they were waived by Appellant's no contest plea to the charge against him. View "Serna v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of aggravated assault and battery. On appeal, Appellant argued that the district court erred by denying his motion to continue his jury trial to allow newly retained counsel additional time to prepare for trial and that the jury's special verdict findings contained inconsistencies that required a new trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant's motion to continue his jury trial; and (2) there was no plain error in alleged inconsistencies in the jury's special verdict findings form. View "Secrest v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of three counts of first-degree sexual abuse of a minor. Appellant appealed, raising four separate allegations of error, including the allegation that the district court erred when it reversed itself on a prior ruling and admitted uncharged misconduct evidence. The Supreme Court reversed on that single issue, holding that the district court abused its discretion when, under the circumstances of this case, it reversed its prior ruling after the State had rested and admitted certain uncharged misconduct evidence under Wyo. R. Evid. 404(b), as the record did not show good reason existed for the reversal and the evidence was clearly prejudicial. View "Munoz v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of sexual assault in the first degree. Defendant appealed, asserting that the district court abused its discretion by allowing a sexual assault nurse examiner to testify as to statements made by the victim during the physical examination of her. Specifically, Defendant contended that the district court did not properly apply the exception and foundational requirements of Wyo. R. Evid. 803(4), which allows a hearsay exception for statements for purposes of medical diangosis. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that statements made by the victim during her sexual assault examination were admissible under Rule 803(4). View "McLaury v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant entered a conditional plea to felony possession of methamphetamine. Appellant appealed, contending that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress the results of a vehicle inventory that preceded the planned impoundment of the vehicle but after Appellant had been arrested. Specifically, Appellant argued that the impoundment of his vehicle was unnecessary, that the search was conducted in bad faith, and that police officers should be required to inquire into less intrusive means of safeguarding a vehicle before inventorying one in anticipation of impoundment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) inventory of a vehicle's contents pending impoundment is constitution when it is authorized by statute or when it is conducted pursuant to the general policy of a law enforcement agency; (2) the state trooper in this case had a statutory basis to impound the vehicle and was required by Highway Patrol policy to inventory the vehicle's contents before impounding it; and (3) the district court did not clearly err in ruling that the trooper acted in good faith. View "Hunnicutt-Carter v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant owned and operated two mobile home parks. In 2000, Appellant changed its practice of including in the rent it charged tenants the cost of water it purchased from the City for the tenants' use. Instead, Appellant installed water meters on each trailer lot and began charging tenants for water usage separately from their rent. In 2008, the Public Service Commission (PSC) determined that Appellant was a public utility and therefore subject to regulation by the PSC. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because Appellant metered a commodity utility to its tenants, it was a public utility under Wyoming law and therefore subject to PSC regulation; and (2) PSC's regulation of Appellant did not violate Appellant's equal protection rights. View "Gosar's Unlimited Inc. v. Wyo. Pub. Serv. Comm'n" on Justia Law

Appellant pled guilty to burglary and attempted assault on a peace officer and nolo contendere to four counts of interference with custody. Appellant received suspended sentences in favor of supervised probation. Thereafter, the State filed a fourth petition to revoke Appellant's probation. After a probation revocation hearing, the district court found Appellant had violated the terms of his probation and, accordingly, revoked Appellant's probation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that did not abuse its discretion in (1) revoking Appellant's probation where Appellant failed to prove his conduct in violation of the conditions of his probation was not willful; and (2) ordering involuntary administration of medication to restore Appellant's competency for the probation revocation proceedings. View "DeMillard v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with burglary and attempted sexual assault. After the attorney Defendant engaged to represent him was severely injured in a motorcycle accident and was unable to continue representing Defendant, the district court allowed Defendant one day to make his choice of a new attorney. After a trial, Defendant was convicted on both counts. Defendant appealed, contending that the district court infringed on his constitutional right to be represented by counsel of his choice by imposing a one-day deadline for choosing new counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not deprive Defendant of a fair opportunity to secure counsel of his own choice. View "Hankins v. State" on Justia Law