Monday, March 19, 2012

Summary 2012 WY 39

Summary of Decision March 16, 2012

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation to a quote the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion will need to have the reporter page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation from this, or any future opinion using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library and we will provide any needed assistance]

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court
Case Name: Jimmy Dean Smallfoot v. The State of Wyoming

Docket Number: S-11-0192


Appeal from the District Court of Campbell County, Honorable Dan R. Price II, Judge

Representing Appellant (Plaintiff/Defendant): Diane Lozano, State Public Defender; Tina N. Olson, Appellant Counsel; Wyoming Public Defender Program. Argument by Ms. Olson.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff/Defendant): Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Stewart M. Young, Faculty Director, Joshua Beau Taylor, Student Director, and Benjamin J. Sherman, Student Intern, of the Prosecution Assistance Program. Argument by Mr. Taylor.

Date of Decision: March 16, 2012

Facts: Appellant Jimmy Dean Smallfoot entered a conditional guilty plea to a charge of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance. He reserved the right to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress the marijuana discovered inside his residence. Smallfoot claims the drug evidence should have been suppressed because it was the fruit of a constitutionally infirm warrantless entry into his home.

Issues: Smallfoot offers this issue for consideration: Did the trial court err in denying Appellant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained in the warrantless search of his residence?

Holdings: The Court held the district court correctly determined that the officers’ warrantless entry into the West Juniper residence pursuant to Gengozian’s consent was constitutionally permissible. The Court’s holding on this issue obviates the need to determine whether the officers’ entry was justified by exigent circumstances. The district court’s denial of Smallfoot’s motion to suppress is affirmed.

Justice Golden delivered the opinion for the court.

No comments:

Check out our tags in a cloud (from Wordle)!