Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of four counts of sexual abuse of a minor in the second degree. Appellant appealed, complaining that the prosecutor engaged in improper misconduct and that he was denied a fair trial as a result of the violation of his right against self-incrimination caused by the deficient assistance of counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant failed to demonstrate that the questions asked by the prosecutor were so harmful and prejudicial that any unfairness or injustice occurred; and (2) trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance for not objecting to a presentence investigation and for failing to advise Appellant that he need not submit to such an investigation. View "Leonard v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant pled guilty to unlawful use of a credit card (a misdemeanor) and forgery (a felony). The district court denied Appellant's motions to modify his sentence, correct an illegal sentence, and reduce his sentence. Appellant unsuccessfully filed a motion for postconviction relief and another motion for a reduction of his sentence. Finally, Appellant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence based on the same allegations he raised in the petition for postconviction relief, namely, that he was denied a direct appeal, that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct. The district court denied the motion. Appellant appealed, arguing that his sentence was illegal because he was not advised that his guilty pleas may result in the disqualification of his right to possess firearms pursuant to federal law. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Court could not consider Appellant's argument because it was being raised for the first time on appeal, and further, even if the issue had been raised before the district court, it would have been barred by the doctrine of res judicata. View "Lunden v. State" on Justia Law

Pursuant to multiple search warrants the Cheyenne Police Department seized property from Appellant's residence in 1999. Subsequent to that search, Appellant was arrested and convicted on six counts of sexual assault. For the next several years, Appellant litigated issues surrounding the seized property. In 2011, Appellant filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 complaint for damages arising out of the property confiscated from his home. The district court dismissed Appellant's claim as time barred. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court correctly dismissed the complaint as time barred; and (2) the issues relating to this property are concluded, and in order to ensure that finality, the Court directed that Appellant be prohibited from filing any further litigation relating to the subject matter of this case. View "DeLoge v. Homar" on Justia Law

Greencore Pipeline Company filed an action seeking to condemn easements across property owned by Barlow Ranch for a pipeline to transport carbon dioxide. The parties reached an agreement on the terms of possession and scope of the easements but disputed the amount that would justly compensate Barlow for the partial taking of its property. During trial, Barlow presented evidence of prices paid for other comparable pipeline easements to show the air market value of Greencore's easement. The district court awarded compensation based upon the average of the amounts Greencore had paid other landowners for easements for its carbon dioxide pipeline. Both parties appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, holding that the district court (1) properly ruled that it could consider evidence of comparable easements in determining just compensation; (2) erred in concluding Barlow's proffered easements were not the result of arms' length transactions or sufficiently comparable, while the other Greencore easements were; (3) erred by concluding annual payments were not allowed under Wyoming law; and (4) correctly ruled that the issue of whether Greencore may abandon the pipeline in place was not properly before the Court. View "Barlow Ranch, LP v. Greencore Pipeline Co., LLC" on Justia Law

Defendant conditionally pleaded guilty to possession with intent to deliver marijuana. On appeal, Defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence discovered during a search of his vehicle. Defendant argued that because the drug dog sniff was inconclusive, the subsequent search of his vehicle was illegal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the totality of the circumstances was sufficient to find probable clause, as additional facts beyond the dog search were used by the district court to determine that probable cause existed, and an officer of reasonable prudence would have been warranted in the belief that controlled substances would be found in Defendant's vehicle. View "Phippen v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of sexual assault in the first degree and sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree. Defendant appealed the district court's denial of a continuance motion and the court's admission of uncharged misconduct evidence of his prior conviction for sexual assault of a minor. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion (1) when it denied Defendant's motion for a continuance of the trial due to a missing witness and in concluding that the unavailable testimony lacked materiality; and (2) in admitting into evidence testimony of the victim that resulted in a prior conviction of Defendant for sexual assault. View "Huckfeldt v. State" on Justia Law

Wife and Husband were divorced by decree. Husband appealed, claiming that the district court (1) abused its discretion in imputing his monthly income and ordering him to pay child support for several months when he was living in the marital home after Wife filed for divorce and ordering him to pay half the cost of the children's past and future activities as an upward deviation of child support; and (2) deprived him of due process in making the above rulings without evidentiary support. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Husband waived his right to assert these claims on appeal. View "Verheydt v. Verheydt" on Justia Law

Defendant entered guilty pleas to aggravated burglary, first-degree murder, and conspiracy to commit aggravated burglary. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment on the first-degree murder conviction. At the time of the murder, Defendant was a juvenile. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant's sentence of life imprisonment for first-degree murder, mandated by Wyo. Stat. 6-2-101(b), was constitutional. After that decision, the U.S. Supreme Court issued Miller v. Alabama, where it held that the Eighth Amendment forbids a sentencing scheme that mandates life in prison without the possibility of parole for juvenile offenders. Based on Miller, Bear Cloud petitioned for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court granted the petition, vacated the judgment in Bear Cloud I and remanded the case to the Wyoming Supreme Court. On remand, the Court held that, in light of the Miller decision, Bear Cloud's sentence for his first-degree murder conviction violated the Eighth Amendment and related U.S. Supreme Court case law. Remanded with instructions to resentence Bear Cloud on the first-degree murder conviction. View "Bear Cloud v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to obtain property by false pretenses and was sentenced to a prison term of eight to ten years. Defendant appealed, challenging the admission of uncharged misconduct evidence and alleging prosecutorial misconduct in the State's sentencing recommendation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the probative value of the uncharged misconduct evidence was not outweighed by its potential for unfair prejudice and thus in admitting the evidence; and (2) the State did not commit prosecutorial misconduct in its sentencing memorandum to the district court, and thus the district court entered a sentence permitted by law. View "Magnus v. State" on Justia Law

The district court appointed Attorney to represent an indigent parent in a termination of parental rights action filed by the Wyoming Department of Family Services (DFS). State law required DFS to pay for the costs of the action, including the attorney's fee for the indigent parent. After a jury trial, the parent's parental rights were terminated. Several months later, Attorney filed a motion for an order approving payment of his attorney's fees in his representation of the parent. The district court awarded Attorney a fifty percent reduction from the fees sought in the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed the fee reduction, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by reducing Attorney's fee application by fifty percent. View "Tolin v. State" on Justia Law