Summary 2013 WY 103

Summary of Decision August 29, 2013

Justice Davis delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: RALPH LAVERNE HUNNICUTT-CARTER v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Docket Number: S-12-0271

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

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

Representing Appellant: Diane Lozano, State Public Defender; Tina N. Olson, Chief Appellate Counsel; David E. Westling, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel; Wyoming Public Defender Program. Argument by Mr. Westling.

Representing Appellee: Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy
Attorney General; Theodore R. Racines, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Prof. Darrell D. Jackson, Faculty Director; Emily N. Thomas, Student Director; and Courtney Gilbert, Student Intern, of the Prosecution Assistance Clinic. Argument by Ms. Gilbert.

Date of Decision: August 29, 2013

Facts: Appellant Ralph Laverne Hunnicutt-Carter entered a conditional plea to a charge of felony possession of methamphetamine, thereby reserving the right to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress the results of a vehicle inventory which yielded the methamphetamine. Appellant contends that impoundment of the vehicle was unnecessary under the circumstances, and that the search was conducted in bad faith. He also claims that police officers should be required to inquire into less intrusive means of safeguarding a vehicle before inventorying one in anticipation of impoundment.

Issues: Did the district court err in denying Appellant’s motion to suppress the results of an inventory search preceding the planned impoundment of a vehicle but after its driver had been arrested?

Holdings: We hold that inventory of a vehicle’s contents pending impoundment is constitutional when it is authorized by statute or when it is conducted pursuant to the general policy of a law enforcement agency. In this case, a state trooper had both a statutory basis to impound a vehicle whose driver had been arrested, and he was also required to inventory the vehicle’s contents before impounding it by a general Wyoming Highway Patrol policy. We also find that the district court’s ruling that the trooper acted in good faith is supported by the record and is not therefore clearly erroneous. The district court did not err in denying Appellant’s motion to suppress, and the judgment and sentence of the district court are therefore affirmed.

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court

[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]

Summary 2013 WY 102

Summary of Decision August 29, 2013

Justice Hill delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: CHARLES FREDERICK SECREST v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Docket Number: S-12-0263

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Appeal from the District Court of Sublette County the Honorable Marvin L. Tyler, Judge

Representing Appellant: Diane Lozano, State Public Defender; Tina N. Olson, Chief Appellate Counsel; Eric M. Alden, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel, Wyoming Public Defender Program, Cheyenne, WY. Argument by Mr. Alden.

Representing Appellee: Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; Theodore R. Racines, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Darrell D. Jackson, Faculty Director, Prosecution Assistance Clinic; Emily Thomas, Student Director; and Jared D. Holbrook, Student Intern. Argument by Mr. Holbrook.

Date of Decision: August 29, 2013

Facts: Following a jury trial, Charles Secrest (Secrest) was found guilty of aggravated assault and battery. On appeal, Secrest contends that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel when the court denied his motion to continue his jury trial to allow his newly retained counsel additional time to prepare for trial. Secrest further contends that the jury’s special verdict findings contain inconsistencies that require a new trial.

Issues: Secrest states the issues on appeal as follows: I. Was Mr. Secrest denied his constitutional right to representation by the attorney of his choice? II. Was the jury’s verdict defective?

Holdings: The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Secrest’s motion to continue his jury trial to allow newly retained counsel additional time to prepare for trial, and there was no plain error in the alleged inconsistencies in the verdict form. Affirmed.

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court

[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]

Summary 2013 WY 101

Summary of Decision August 28, 2013

Justice Hill delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed

Case Name: ZYGMUNT JOHN SAMIEC v. SUSAN KAY FERMELIA, f/k/a SUSAN KAY SAMIEC

Docket Number: S-12-0269

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Appeal from the District Court of Sweetwater County the Honorable Nena James, Judge

Representing Appellant: Jon Aimone of Lemich Law Center, Rock Springs, WY

Representing Appellee: Eric F. Phillips, Rock Springs, WY

Date of Decision: August 28, 2013

Facts: Father challenges an order interpreting divorce decree provisions that govern payment of counseling and medical expenses for the parties’ children.

Issues: On a stipulated case, did the District Court err in answering a question which it had not been asked to answer? Did the District Court abuse its discretion when it denied Fathers’ Motion for Continuance to allow the presentation of evidence on the question, which the District Court answered but had not been asked to answer?

Holdings: Affirmed.

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court

[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]

Summary 2013 WY 100

Summary of Decision August 22, 2013

Justice Davis delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: IN THE MATTER OF THE WORKER’S COMPENSATION CLAIM OF: MARSHALL S. LITTLE v. STATE OF WYOMING ex rel. DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE SERVICES, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION DIVISION

Docket Number: S-12-0268

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Appeal from the District Court of Campbell County the Honorable John R. Perry, Judge

Representing Appellant: Donna D. Domonkos, Attorney at Law, Cheyenne, Wyoming

Representing Appellee: Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; John D. Rossetti, Deputy Attorney General; Michael J. Finn, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Michael T. Kahler, Senior Assistant Attorney General

Date of Decision: August 22, 2013

Facts: Appellant Marshall S. Little suffered a lower back injury when he was drawn into a mixing chute of a hot mix plant used by the paving company he worked for in 1988. He underwent a lumbar surgery in 1989. His condition improved in the early 1990s, and he did not require treatment for his back injury for several years. In 2007, he began seeing an internist, who diagnosed him with an arthritic hip and recommended a hip replacement. Mr. Little submitted a bill for $87.00 for the office visit to the Wyoming Workers’ Safety and Compensation Division (the Division). The Division declined to pay the bill because it believed the hip condition to be unrelated to the original work injury. Mr. Little objected and requested a contested case hearing before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). The OAH hearing examiner found that Mr. Little was not entitled to benefits for a second compensable injury, relying on an orthopedic surgeon’s evaluation that the arthritic hip was not relatedto the original compensable injury. The district court affirmed.

Issues: Does substantial evidence support the hearing examiner’s decision that Mr. Little was not entitled to benefits for a second compensable hip injury?

Holdings: Mr. Little met his burden of producing competent evidence to demonstrate a causal link between his compensable work injury and the arthritis in his hip nearly twenty years later. However, he failed to carry the burden of persuasion because the hearing examiner chose to believe the report of an orthopedic surgeon, which found no causallink between the original injury and the arthritis in his hip. Substantial evidence supports the hearing examiner’s findings. Affirmed.

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court

[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]

Summary 2013 WY 99

Summary of Decision August 15, 2013

Justice Burke delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: ERIC LEVANTER DEMILLARD v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Docket Number: S-12-0235

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Appeal from the District Court of Carbon County, the Honorable Norman E. Young, Judge

Representing Appellant: Diane M. Lozano, State Public Defender; Tina N. Olson, Appellate Counsel; David E. Westling, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel. Argument by Mr. Westling.

Representing Appellee: Gregory A. Phillips, Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; Theodore R. Racines, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Jessica Y. Frint, Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Ms. Frint.

Date of Decision: August 15, 2013

Facts: Appellant, Eric DeMillard, challenges an order from the district court revoking his probation. He contends the district court abused its discretion in revoking his probation because the conduct violating the terms of his probation was not “willful.” He also claims the district court exceeded statutory authority by ordering involuntary administration of medication in order to restore his competency during the probation revocation proceedings.

Issues: 1. Did the district court abuse its discretion when it revoked Appellant’s probation?
2. Did the district court err in granting the State’s Motion for Involuntary Medication to restore Appellant to competency?

Holdings: The district court did not err in ordering the involuntary administration of medication to restore Appellant’s competency for the probation revocation proceedings. Affirmed.

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court

[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]

Summary 2013 WY 98

Summary of Decision August 14, 2013

Justice Hill delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.
*Please see Holdings below.

Case Name: IVAN LEE SWEETS, SR. v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Docket Number: S-12-0253

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Appeal from the District Court of Sweetwater County, the Honorable Nena James, Judge

Representing Appellant: Diane Lozano, State Public Defender; Tina N. Olson, Chief Appellate Counsel; David E. Westling, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel; Wyoming Public Defender Program. Argument by Mr. Westling.

Representing Appellee: Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; Theodore R. Racines, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Darrell D. Jackson, Prosecution Assistance Program; and Emily Thomas, Student Director; Rives White, Student Intern. Argument by Messers. Racines and White.

Date of Decision: August 14, 2013

Facts: Ivan Sweets was convicted of one count of obtaining property by false pretenses and one count of wrongful disposing of that property. He was sentenced to terms of six to eight years on each count, to be served consecutively. On appeal, Sweets challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction for obtaining property by false pretenses, and he contends that the two criminal counts should have merged for purposes of sentencing.

Issues: Sweets states the issues on appeal as follows: I. Did the court err by denying [Sweets’] motion for judgment of acquittal for the reason that there was insufficient evidence to support a verdict on obtaining property by false pretenses? II. Did the court err in denying [Sweets’] motion to merge sentences in that both convictions arose from a single act and a single set of facts?

Holdings: Sweets’ conviction and sentence are affirmed. To the extent our past decisions have applied the facts or evidence test to evaluate sentencing merger, those decisions are overruled. The same elements test is now the controlling inquiry for evaluating questions of sentencing merger.

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court

[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]

Summary 2013 WY 97

Summary of Decision August 13, 2013

Justice Burke delivered the opinion for the Court. Reversed and remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

Case Name: IN THE MATTER OF ARF, a minor child: JKS v. AHF

Docket Number: S-13-0031

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Appeal from the District Court of Natrona County the Honorable David B. Park, Judge

Representing Appellant: Keith R. Nachbar, Keith R. Nachbar, PC, Casper, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: Richard H. Peek, Attorney at Law, Casper, Wyoming.

Date of Decision: August 13, 2013

Facts: In this paternity proceeding, Father, JKS, appeals the district court’s decision to grant custody of their eight-year-old daughter, ARF, to Mother, AHF. He also challenges the district court’s calculation of child support arrearages and its imposition of time limits on the parties’ trial presentations.

Issues: We have rephrased and reordered the issues presented by Father as follows: 1. Did the district court abuse its discretion in awarding custody to Mother? 2. Did the district court commit reversible error in its calculation of child support arrears? 3. Did the district court abuse its discretion in imposing a 160-minute limitation on each party’s trial presentation?

Holdings: We will affirm the district court’s decisions with respect to custody and the time limits. However, because the district court’s order does not comply with the statutory mandate to set forth the presumptive child support amount, we must reverse and remand the district court’s child support decision.

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court

[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]

Summary 2013 WY 96

Summary of Decision August 13, 2013

Chief Justice Kite delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: JOSEPH O. HAYES v. STATE OF WYOMING, ex rel., WYOMING WORKERS’ SAFETY AND COMPENSATION DIVISION

Docket Number: S-12-0280

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Appeal from the District Court of Platte County, the Honorable John C. Brooks, Judge

Representing Appellant: Lynn Boak of Lynn Boak, Attorney at Law, LLC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; John D. Rossetti, Deputy Attorney General; Michael J. Finn, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Kelly Roseberry, Assistant Attorney General.

Date of Decision: August 13, 2013

Facts: Joseph O. Hayes, who suffers from cystic fibrosis, sought worker’s compensation benefits for treatment of pulmonary and other symptoms he believed were related to a workplace accident. The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) upheld the Wyoming Workers’ Safety and Compensation Division’s (Division) denial of benefits, and the district court affirmed the OAH decision. Mr. Hayes appeals to this Court, claiming the OAH erred by failing to find a causal connection between his work injury and his later medical conditions. He asserts he presented sufficient evidence of the causal connection by his own testimony and the opinion of a registered nurse.

Issues: Although Mr. Hayes phrases the issues differently, the issues requiring resolution in this case are: 1. Whether there was substantial evidence to support the OAH conclusion that Mr. Hayes failed to prove the causal connection between his job related broken hand and his later symptoms requiring hospitalization. 2. Whether the OAH properly disregarded Mr. Hayes’ expert’s report. 3. Whether medical testimony was required to establish causation. The State’s statement of the issue contains the same general questions.

Holdings: In sum, Mr. Hayes maintains that he had been successful in keeping his cystic fibrosis under control for many years by engaging in regular, strenuous exercise. He was unable to exercise because of his work injury and within a month he experienced respiratory problems and joint pain. According to him, it is a natural conclusion that the injury led to his subsequent ailments. The problem with his argument is that he did not prove the critical causal link with credible medical evidence. Substantial evidence exists in the record to support the hearing examiner’s decision to reject the causation evidence offered by Mr. Hayes and that conclusion was not contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Affirmed.

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court

[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]

Summary 2013 WY 95

Summary of Decision August 12, 2013

Justice Davis delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: In the Matter of the Worker’s Compensation Claim of: Kristi Leavitt v. State of Wyoming ex rel. Wyoming Workers’ Safety and Compensation Division

Docket Number: S-12-0234

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, the Honorable T.C. Campbell, Judge

Representing Appellant: Robert A. Nicholas, Nicholas Law Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming

Representing Appellee: Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; Michael Finn, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Jackson M. Engels, Assistant Attorney General

Date of Decision: August 12, 2013

Facts: Appellant Kristi Leavitt experienced lower back pain after shoveling snow just before Christmas of 2009. She filed a claim for benefits with the Wyoming Workers’ Safety and Compensation Division, contending that her pain was causally related to a compensable back injury she had suffered in 1996. The Division denied the claim, and the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) upheld that decision after holding a contested case hearing. The district court for the First Judicial District affirmed the OAH ruling.

Issues: Leavitt raises four issues which we reorder and restate as follows: Was the OAH decision contrary to law? Did the hearing examiner act arbitrarily and capriciously or abuse his discretion? Were the hearing examiner’s findings of fact sufficient? Was the OAH decision supported by substantial evidence?

Holdings: We have determined that the OAH hearing examiner did not err as a matter of law when he disregarded Dr. Ross’ opinion as the cause of Leavitt’s injuries, that the hearing examiner’s findings of fact were sufficient, and that his decision was not contrary to the weight of the evidence even though certain findings not essential to the decision were incorrect. We therefore affirm the Opinion and Order of the district court.

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court

[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]

Summary 2013 WY 94

Summary of Decision August 7, 2013

Justice Voigt delivered the opinion for the Court. Reversed and remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

Case Name: MICHAEL JESSE MUNOZ v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Docket Number: S-12-0191

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County the Honorable Thomas T.C. Campbell, Judge

Representing Appellant: Diane M. Lozano, State Public Defender; Tina N. Olson, Chief appellate Counsel. Argument by Ms. Olson.

Representing Appellee: Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; Theodore R. Racines, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Jeffrey S. Pope, Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Mr. Pope.

Date of Decision: August 7, 2013

Facts: A jury found the appellant guilty of three counts of first-degree sexual abuse of a minor. On appeal, the appellant raises four separate allegations of error in the district court.

Issues: Did the district court abuse its discretion when, under the particular circumstances of this case, it reversed its prior ruling and admitted certain uncharged misconduct evidence under W.R.E. 404(b), such reversal occurring after the State had rested?

Holdings: In reaching the conclusion that the district court abused its discretion when it changed its prior ruling and allowed the evidence, we do not suggest that a district court may never reconsider a prior ruling on 404(b) evidence and allow evidence it previously ruled inadmissible. To the contrary, a district court can and should reconsider a prior ruling when good reason appears on the record and no prejudice results. Where, as here, however, the record does not show good reason existed and the evidence was clearly prejudicial, it was not reasonable for the district court to reverse its ruling. Reversed and remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court

[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]

Summary 2013 WY 93

Summary of Decision July 31, 2013

Justice Davis delivered the opinion for the Court. Reversed and Remanded.

Case Name: KELVIN BOURKE v. GREY WOLF DRILLING COMPANY, LP, now known as PRECISION DRILLING COMPANY, LP

Docket Number: S-12-0258

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Appeal from the District Court of Natrona County the Honorable Catherine E. Wilking, Judge

Representing Appellant: Hampton M. Young, Jr., Attorney at Law, Casper, Wyoming

Representing Appellee: Amanda W. Wiley of Taylor | Anderson, LLP, Denver, Colorado

Date of Decision: July 31, 2013

Facts: Appellant Kelvin Bourke sued his former employer Grey Wolf Drilling Company, LP, for fraud and wrongful termination in the Seventh Judicial District Court. Unbeknownst to Bourke, Grey Wolf had been sold to a foreign corporation, Precision Drilling,1 which affected the venue of this action under Wyoming Statute § 1-5-107. Precision Drilling was not a resident of Wyoming as Grey Wolf had been. Precision Drilling moved to dismiss the case for improper venue and failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The district court granted the motion on both grounds. Bourke claims that the district court erred in dismissing his complaint for improper venue, and that his claims were summarily dismissed when he should have been granted leave to amend his complaint.

Issues: Appellant states the issues as follows: A. Whether the venue outlined in Wyo. Stat. § 1-5-107 is mandatory, requiring a case filed in the improper County be dismissed. B. Whether or not the Court abused its discretion by denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend.

We believe the issues are more aptly summarized as follows: 1. Was venue proper in Natrona County? 2. If venue was not proper, should the district court have transferred the case to a proper venue? 3. Did the district court err as a matter of law in reaching the merits of a motion to dismiss on W.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) grounds after it determined that the case had to be dismissed on venue grounds?

Holdings: We affirm the district court’s dismissal for improper venue, but we conclude that the court erred as a matter of law when it reached the merits of the case after determining that it had to be dismissed on venue grounds. We accordingly reverse and remand for entry of a dismissal without prejudice based only upon improper venue.

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court

[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]

Summary 2013 WY 92

Summary of Decision July 31, 2013

Order Suspending Attorney from the Practice of Law

Case Name: BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, WYOMING STATE BAR v. CLAY B. JENKINS, WSB #5-2249

Docket Number: D-13-0004

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

This matter came before the Court upon a “Report and Recommendation for Suspension,” filed herein July 11, 2013, by the Board of Professional Responsibility for the Wyoming State Bar, pursuant to Section 16 of the Disciplinary Code for the Wyoming State Bar (stipulated discipline). After a careful review of the Board of Professional Responsibility’s Report and Recommendation for Suspension and the file, this Court finds that the Report and Recommendation for Suspension should be approved, confirmed and adopted by the Court; and that the Respondent, Clay B. Jenkins, should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year. It is, therefore,

ADJUDGED AND ORDERED that the Board of Professional Responsibility’s
Report and Recommendation for Suspension, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein, shall be, and the same hereby is, approved, confirmed, and adopted by this Court; and it is further

ADJUDGED AND ORDERED that, as a result of the conduct set forth in the Report and Recommendation for Suspension, Respondent Clay B. Jenkins shall be, and hereby is, suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year from May 10, 2013; and it is further

ORDERED that Respondent shall comply with Section 22 of the Disciplinary Code for the Wyoming State Bar. That Section governs the duties of disbarred and suspended attorneys; and it is further

ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 26 of the Disciplinary Code of the Wyoming State Bar, Clay B. Jenkins shall pay the administrative fee of $500.00. Mr. Jenkins shall pay that amount to the Clerk of the Board of Professional Responsibility on or before October 31, 2013; and it is further

ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4 of the Disciplinary Code for the Wyoming State Bar, this Order Suspending Attorney from the Practice of Law, along with the incorporated Report and Recommendation for Suspension, shall be published in the Wyoming Reporter and the Pacific Reporter; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court shall docket this Order Suspending
Attorney from the Practice of Law, along with the Report and Recommendation for Suspension, as a matter coming regularly before this Court as a public record; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court cause a copy of the Order Suspending Attorney from the Practice of Law to be served upon Respondent Clay B. Jenkins.

DATED this 31st day of July, 2013.

*Justice Davis took no part in the consideration of this matter. Retired Justice Michael Golden participated by assignment.

Follow this link to read the full Report and Recommendation for Suspension: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court

[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]

Summary 2013 WY 91

Summary of Decision July 24, 2013

Justice Burke delivered the opinion for the Court. Reversed and remanded.

Case Name: STATE OF WYOMING ex rel., DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES v. LISA KISLING

Docket Number: S-12-0256

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Appeal from the District Court of Fremont County, the Honorable Timothy C. Day, Judge

Representing Appellant: Gregory A. Phillips, Attorney General; Robin Sessions Cooley, Deputy Attorney General. Argument by Ms. Cooley.

Representing Appellee: John M. Burman, Director, Ethan Doak and Matthew Pennell, Student Interns, University of Wyoming, College of Law Legal Services Program. Argument by Mr. Doak.

Date of Decision: July 24, 2013

Facts: Appellant, the Department of Family Services (Department), denied child care assistance benefits to Appellee, Lisa Kisling, because her participation in a graduate-level educational program rendered her ineligible for receipt of such benefits. The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) upheld the denial of benefits after a contested case hearing. Ms. Kisling petitioned for review of that decision in the district court, and the district court reversed the OAH’s decision after finding that the Department was equitably estopped from denying benefits to Ms. Kisling. The Department appeals from the district court’s order, contending that the issue of estoppel was not raised before the OAH, and that the district court should not have considered it.

Issues: The Department presents three issues for our review, which we discuss in the following order: Did the Department correctly conclude, as a matter of law, that its statutes and rules precluded Ms. Kisling from receiving child care assistance benefits while she attended law school? Did the district court err when it considered the issue of equitable estoppel on review of the Department’s decision? Did the district court err when it determined that the Department was equitably estopped from terminating, and thereafter denying, Ms. Kisling benefits while she attended law school? Ms. Kisling states the issues in a substantially similar manner.

Holdings: The district court’s order reversing the OAH’s decision upholding the Department’s denial of benefits is reversed, and we remand to the district court with instructions that an order be entered affirming the OAH’s decision.

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court

[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]

Summary 2013 WY 90

Summary of Decision July 19, 2013

Justice Hill delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: GOSAR’S UNLIMITED INC., v. THE WYOMING PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

Docket Number: S-12-0194

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, the Honorable Peter G. Arnold, Judge

Representing Appellant: Bruce S. Asay of Associated Legal Group, LLC, Cheyenne, WY.

Representing Appellee: Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; Martin L. Hardsocg, Deputy Attorney General; Ryan T. Schelhaas, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Michael M. Robinson, Senior Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Mr. Robinson.

Date of Decision: July 19, 2013

Facts: Gosar’s Unlimited, Inc. (“Gosar’s”) owns and operates two mobile home parks where, historically, Gosar’s included in the rent it charged tenants the cost of water that it purchased from the City of Rock Springs for the tenants’ use. However, in 2000, Gosar’s installed water meters on each trailer lot and began charging tenants for their water usage separately from their rent.

In 2008, acting on a complaint from a former tenant, the Public Service Commission (“PSC”) opened an investigation to determine whether Gosar’s was operating as a public utility and therefore subject to regulation by the PSC. Following an investigation and subsequent hearing, the PSC determined that Gosar’s was a public utility subject to PSC regulation. The district court affirmed the PSC’s determination, and this appeal followed.

Issues: We rephrase Gosar’s issues as follows: Whether Gosar’s is a public utility subject to regulation by the PSC, given that Gosar’s operates a mobile home park and installed water meters to allow it to bill tenants for their water usage separately from their rent? Whether the PSC’s regulation of Gosar’s has violated Gosar’s right to equal protection because the PSC does not regulate other similarly situated mobile home park operators?

Holdings: The PSC’s conclusion and the district court’s order affirming that Gosar’s is a public utility under Wyoming law is affirmed.

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court

[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]

Summary 2013 WY 89

Summary of Decision July 18, 2013

Justice Hill delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.
Special concurrence by Justice Burke and Justice Voigt

Case Name: LONNIE C. McLAURY v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Docket Number: S-12-0240

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, the Honorable Michael Davis, Judge

Representing Appellant: Diane Lozano, State Public Defender; Tina N. Olson, Chief Appellate Counsel; and Eric M. Alden, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel.

Representing Appellee: Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; Theodore R. Racines, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Christyne Martens, Assistant Attorney General.

Date of Decision: July 18, 2013

Facts: A jury convicted Lonnie McLaury of sexual assault in the first degree in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-302(a)(iii). On appeal, McLaury contends that the district court abused its discretion when it allowed a sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE nurse) to testify, over his objection, as to the statements made by the victim during the physical examination of her.

Issues: McLaury presents one issue: Did the trial court abuse its discretion in allowing hearsay testimony?

Holdings: McLaury’s conviction is affirmed, and we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted the victim’s statements made during her sexual assault examination under W.R.E. 803(4). Please see the full opinion for the special concurrence.

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court

[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]

Summary 2013 WY 88

Order of Public Censure July 18, 2013

Case Name: BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, WYOMING STATE BAR v. CYNTHIA K. VAN VLEET, WSB #6-4385

Docket Number: D-13-0005

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Petitioner: BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, WYOMING STATE BAR

Respondent: CYNTHIA K. VAN VLEET, WSB #6-4385

Date of Decision: July 18, 2013

This matter came before the Court upon a “Report and Recommendation for Public Censure,” filed herein June 12, 2013, by the Board of Professional Responsibility for the Wyoming State Bar. The Court, after a careful review of the Board of Professional Responsibility’s Report and Recommendation and the file, finds that the Report and Recommendation should be approved, confirmed and adopted by the Court, and that Respondent Cynthia K. Van Vleet should be publicly censured for her conduct, which is described in the attached Report and Recommendation. It is, therefore,

ADJUDGED AND ORDERED that the Board of Professional Responsibility’s Report and Recommendation for Public Censure, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein, shall be, and the same hereby is, approved, confirmed, and adopted by this Court; and it is further

ADJUDGED AND ORDERED that Cynthia K. Van Vleet is hereby publicly censured for her conduct, which is described in the attached Report and Recommendation for Public Censure; and it is further

ORDERED that, on or before December 31, 2013, Ms. Van Vleet shall complete four (4) hours of continuing legal education on the subject of ethics; and it is further

ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 26 of the Disciplinary Code for the Wyoming State Bar, Ms. Van Vleet shall reimburse the Wyoming State Bar the amount of $4,697.43, representing the costs incurred in handling this matter, as well as pay the administrative fee of $500.00. Ms. Van Vleet shall pay the total amount of $5,197.43 to the Clerk of the Board of Professional Responsibility on or before December 31, 2013; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court shall docket this Order of Public Censure, along with the incorporated Report and Recommendation for Public Censure, as a matter coming regularly before this Court as a public record; and it is further

ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4 of the Disciplinary Code for the Wyoming State Bar, this Order of Public Censure, along with the incorporated Report and Recommendation for Public Censure, shall be published in the Wyoming Reporter and the Pacific Reporter; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court cause a copy of the Order of Public Censure to be served upon Respondent Cynthia K. Van Vleet.

DATED this 18th day of July, 2013.

Please follow link to access to the full Report and Recommendation: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court

[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]

Summary 2013 WY 87

Summary of Decision July 16, 2013

Justice Burke delivered the opinion for the Court. Dismissed.

Case Name: TONY SERNA v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Docket Number: S-12-0273

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Appeal from the District Court of Washakie County the Honorable Robert E. Skar, Judge

Representing Appellant: Pro se.

Representing Appellee: Gregory A. Phillips, Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; Theodore R. Racines, Senior Assistant Attorney General.

Date of Decision: July 16, 2013

Facts: Appellant, Tony Serna, was charged with one count of felony property destruction. Pursuant to a plea agreement, he pled no contest to the charge. In accordance with the plea agreement, Mr. Serna received “first offender treatment” pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-13-301, and was placed on supervised probation for five years. He challenges that order in this appeal.

Issues: We quote the issues as they are stated in Mr. Serna’s brief: The district court being in error, described as “Plain Error” in W.R.A.P. 9.05; and Supplemental evidence which may be taken by the reviewing court in cases involving fraud, or involving misconduct of some person engaged in the administration of the law affecting the decision, as described in W.R.A.P. 12.08; and Additional material evidence according to W.R.A.P. 12.08. In all cases other than contested cases, additional material evidence may be presented to the reviewing court.

According to the State, the issues are these: I. When a brief fails to present a valid contention supported by cogent argument or pertinent authority, this Court has consistently refused to consider the appeal. Serna’s brief does not contain a cogent argument supported by pertinent authority that would allow this Court to discern the nature of the issues. Should this Court entertain this appeal? II. The entry of a no contest plea prohibits appellate review of most defenses, including arguments that a defendant’s rights were violated prior to the entry of the plea. Serna entered a plea and received his bargained-for first offender disposition. Although less than clear, Serna appears to argue that his actions were justified due to a wide-ranging conspiracy against him. Should this Court entertain his appeal?

Holdings: The Court concluded that this appeal must be dismissed.

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court

[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]

Summary 2013 WY 86

Summary of Decision, July 16, 2013

Justice Voigt delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: NICHOLAS A. PICOZZI v. STATE OF WYOMING, ex rel., WYOMING WORKERS’ SAFETY AND COMPENSATION DIVISION

Docket Number: S-12-0254

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Appeal from the District Court of Campbell County the Honorable John R. Perry, Judge

Representing Appellant: James C. Worthen of Murane & Bostwick, LLC, Casper, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; John D. Rossetti, Deputy
Attorney General; Michael J. Finn, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Kelly Roseberry, Assistant Attorney General.

Date of Decision: July 16, 2013

Facts: Nicholas Picozzi, the appellant, injured his neck in a compensable work-related accident. After receiving temporary total disability benefits for thirty-six months, the appellant underwent shoulder surgery. The appellant applied to the Wyoming Workers’ Safety and Compensation Division (Division) for additional benefits, arguing that the shoulder injury was a second compensable injury and he, therefore, was entitled to a separate period of benefits. Although the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) agreed, the district court rejected that argument. The appellant now appeals that decision and also argues in the alternative that equitable estoppel prohibits enforcement of the thirty-six month limitation.

Issues: Did the OAH hearing examiner err as a matter of law by granting the appellant’s application for temporary total disability benefits? Is the Division equitably estopped from enforcing the thirty-six month limitation on receipt of temporary total disability benefits?

Holdings: The appellant received temporary total disability benefits for thirty-six months as a result of work-related injury to his neck. After the thirty-six months expired, the appellant underwent shoulder surgery. Because the appellant’s shoulder injury was a result of the same accident that caused his neck injury, he is not entitled to an additional period of benefits. Equitable estoppel does not prevent the enforcement of the thirty-six month limitation because the appellant did not detrimentally rely upon an action by the Division. We affirm the district’s court’s decision, finding that the appellant was not entitled to further benefits.

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court

[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]

Summary 2013 WY 85

Summary of Decision July 12, 2013

Justice Burke delivered the opinion for the Court. Reversed and remanded.

Case Name: JB v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Docket Number: S-12-0239

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Original Proceeding Petition for Writ of Review District Court of Fremont County the Honorable Marvin L. Tyler, Judge

Representing Petitioner: Diane M. Lozano, State Public Defender; Eric M. Alden, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel. Argument by Mr. Alden.

Representing Respondent: Gregory A. Phillips, Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; Theodore R. Racines, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Jeffrey S. Pope, Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Mr. Pope.

Date of Decision: July 12, 2013

Facts: The Petitioner, JB,1 is a minor who was charged as an adult with nine felonies arising from a home invasion and the resulting deaths of two individuals. He was fifteen at the time of the crimes. Prior to trial, JB filed a Motion to Transfer Proceedings to Juvenile Court. The district court denied the motion. JB then filed a Petition for Writ of Review seeking interlocutory review of that decision. In support of his Petition, he claimed that the district court improperly placed the burden on him to establish that the case should be transferred to juvenile court. We granted the Petition.

Issues: Although JB lists nine issues in his brief, we find a single issue to be dispositive: Did the district court improperly place the burden of persuasion on JB rather than on the State?

Holdings: Upon review, we conclude that the district court erred in failing to assign the burden of persuasion to the State to establish that the case should not be transferred to juvenile court. The district court’s denial of JB’s motion to transfer his case from district court to juvenile court is reversed. The case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court

[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]

Summary 2013 WY 84

Summary of Decision July 11, 2013

Chief Justice Kite delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: MORRIS EUGENE GRIMES v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Docket Number: S-12-0229

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Appeal from the District Court of Campbell County, Honorable John R. Perry, Judge

Representing Appellant (Plaintiff/Defendant): Diane Lozano, State Public Defender, PDP; Tina N. Olson, Chief Appellate Counsel; Kirk A. Morgan, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel. Argument by Mr. Morgan.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff/Defendant): Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; Theodore R. Racines, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Darrell D. Jackson, Faculty Director, PAP; Emily N. Thomas, Student Director, PAP. Argument by Ms. Thomas.

Date of Decision: July 11, 2013

Facts: Morris Eugene Grimes was convicted after a jury trial of felony interference with a peace officer. On appeal, he claims the evidence that the officer was injured by his actions was insufficient to support the conviction.

Issues: Mr. Grimes presents the following issue on appeal: Whether there was sufficient evidence to support, beyond a reasonable doubt, a conviction for interference with a police officer in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-5-204(b)? The State presents essentially the same issue.

Holdings: We conclude the evidence, viewed in accordance with our standard of review, supports the jury’s decision. Consequently, we affirm.

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court

[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]

Summary 2013 WY 83

Summary of Decision July 10, 2013

Justice Burke delivered the opinion for the Court. Reversed.

Case Name: BRANDON LEE JENSEN v. MARGARET E. MILATZO-JENSEN

Docket Number: S-12-0279

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, Honorable Thomas T.C. Campbell, Judge

Representing Appellant (Plaintiff/Defendant): Brandon L. Jensen, pro se, of Budd-Falen Law Offices, LLC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff/Defendant): No appearance.

Date of Decision: July 10, 2013

Facts: Appellant, Brandon Lee Jensen (Father), challenges an order from the district court holding him in contempt for failing to comply with an order awarding attorney’s fees to Appellee, Margaret E. Milatzo-Jensen (Mother).

Issues: The sole issue presented for our review is whether the district court’s contempt order must be set aside following reversal of the underlying order awarding attorney’s fees.

Holdings: We recently reversed the district court’s order awarding attorney’s fees to Mother in Jensen v. Milatzo-Jensen, 2013 WY 27, 297 P.3d 768 (Wyo. 2013) (Jensen I). As a consequence of our reversal of the underlying fee order, we conclude that the contempt order must also be set aside, and we reverse.

[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]

Summary 2013 WY 82

Summary of Decision July 10, 2013

Justice Davis delivered the opinion for the Court. Reversed and remanded.

Case Name: JERRY HERLING v. WYOMING MACHINERY CO., a Wyoming corporation

Docket Number: S-12-0227

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx
>
Appeal from the District Court of Natrona County, the Honorable Catherine E. Wilking, Judge

Representing Appellant: Carissa D. Mobley and Cameron S. Walker of Schwartz, Bon, Walker & Studer, LLC, Casper, Wyoming. Argument by Ms. Mobley.

Representing Appellee: Timothy M. Stubson of Crowley Fleck, PLLP, Casper, Wyoming

Date of Decision: July 10, 2013

Facts: This case involves a complicated series of events that have so far led to litigation in as many as three Wyoming district courts, a jury trial in the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming, a bankruptcy proceeding in California, and this appeal. Jerry Herling Construction, Inc. (“JHCI”) contracted with Wyoming Machinery for rental and service of earthmoving equipment, but defaulted on the payments due under the agreement. Wyoming Machinery seeks to enforce personal guaranties of JHCI’s performance against Jerry Herling, JHCI’s CEO. Herling argues that an assignment of JHCI’s retainage account and a settlement between other parties released him from his guaranties.

Issues: Did JHCI’s assignment of retainage it claimed to be owed by Tetra Tech EC, Inc. or an oral promise or representation by an employee of Wyoming Machinery release Jerry Herling from personal guaranties of JHCI’s performance? Did a settlement agreement between Tetra Tech and Wyoming Machinery release Jerry Herling from personal liability on his guaranties? Were there genuine issues of material fact regarding the proper amount of the judgment to which Wyoming Machinery was entitled against Mr. Herling?

Holdings: We agree with the trial court that Wyoming Machinery was entitled to judgment against Herling on his guaranties as a matter of law, but we find that there are genuine issues of material facts as to the correct amount of the judgment, and we therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court

[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]

Summary 2013 WY 81

Summary of Decision July 9, 2013

Justice Hill delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: IN THE MATTER OF THE WORKER'S COMPENSATION CLAIM OF: DAVID GREEN v. STATE OF WYOMING, ex rel., DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE SERVICES, WORKERS' SAFETY AND COMPENSATION DIVISION

Docket Number: S-12-0238

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Appeal from the District Court of Campbell County, the Honorable John R. Perry, Judge

Representing Appellant: James R. Salisbury of Riske & Salisbury, P.C., Cheyenne, WY.

Representing Appellee: Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; John D. Rossetti, Deputy Attorney General; Michael J. Finn, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Matthias L. Sayer, Assistant Attorney General.

Date of Decision: July 9, 2013

Facts: David Green (Green) suffered a work-related injury to his lumbar spine in 2004 and received workers’ compensation benefits for that injury. After surgery and reaching maximum medical improvement in 2005, Green accepted compensation for a 21% whole body permanent partial impairment (PPI). In 2010, following increased back pain, Green underwent additional surgery to his lumbar spine, for which he again received medical and temporary total disability (TTD) benefits. After reaching maximum medical improvement following the 2010 surgery, Green was again evaluated for a whole body PPI rating. The final rating was a 7% whole body PPI.

Because the 2010 PPI evaluation resulted in a rating that was less than the 2005 rating, the Wyoming Workers’ Compensation Division (Division) issued a final determination denying a PPI award beyond the 21% already paid. Green appealed the Division’s determination to the Wyoming Medical Commission (Commission). The Commission upheld the Division’s determination, and the district court affirmed the Commission’s decision. On appeal to this Court, Green argues that the Commission’s decision is not in accordance with law, is not supported by substantial evidence, and is arbitrary and capricious.

Issues: Green states the issues for our review as follows:

Whether the Hearing Panel committed an error of law in its application of Wyoming Statute § 27-14-405(f) and (g) in denying [Green] permanent partial impairment benefits. Whether the Hearing Panel Order is supported by substantial evidence and produces an arbitrary and capricious result to deny [Green] permanent partial impairment benefits.

Holdings: The Commission’s denial of Green’s request for a higher PPI rating is supported by the record and in accordance with law. Affirmed.

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court

[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]

Summary 2013 WY 80

Summary of Decision July 2, 2013

Justice Voigt delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: MATTHEW C. KURTENBACH v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Docket Number: S-13-0022

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Appeal from the District Court of Weston County, the Honorable Keith G. Kautz, Judge

Representing Appellant: Matthew C. Kurtenbach, pro se.

Representing Appellee: Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; Theodore R. Racines, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Jeffrey S. Pope, Assistant Attorney General.

Date of Decision: July 2, 2013

Facts: The appellant, Matthew C. Kurtenbach, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence.

Issues: Did the district court abuse its discretion when it denied the appellant’s motion to correct an illegal sentence?

Holdings: We find that res judicata bars review of the issues raised by the appellant because these issues could have been raised in the first motion to correct an illegal sentence but were not. Additionally, even though he included more detailed constitutional issues in the second motion to correct illegal sentence, the appellant is making the same complaint as in the first motion―that he did not receive credit against his Wyoming sentence while incarcerated in other jurisdictions. Further, the appellant has not demonstrated good cause as to why these issues were not raised in the first motion and why the district court and this Court should now consider them. We affirm the district court’s denial of the appellant’s motion to correct an illegal sentence.

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court

[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]

Summary 2013 WY 79

Summary of Decision June 28, 2013

Chief Justice Kite delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF PRIVATE ROAD BY EVAN W. CROSS AND SANDRA D. CROSS, husband and wife, Proposed Road No. 276: WAYNE CURTIS ALTAFFER v. EVAN W. CROSS and SANDRA D. CROSS

Docket Number: S-12-0221

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Appeal from the District Court of Crook County The Honorable John R. Perry, Judge

Representing Appellant: Kermit C. Brown and Elisa M. Butler of Brown & Hiser LLC, Laramie, Wyoming. Argument by Ms. Butler.

Representing Appellees: Keith R. Nachbar of Keith R. Nachbar, P.C., Casper, Wyoming

Date of Decision: June 28, 2013

Facts: Evan W. Cross and Sandra D. Cross filed an application for a private road with the Crook County Board of County Commissioners (Board). Wayne Curtis Altaffer moved to dismiss the application. After a hearing, the Board granted his motion and dismissed the application. The Crosses filed a petition for judicial review in district court. The district court found that the Board’s decision was not in accordance with the law, reversed the ruling and remanded the case to the Board. Mr. Altaffer appealed the district court’s order to this Court.

Issues: Mr. Altaffer contends the district court erred in reversing the Board’s ruling dismissing the private road application. The Crosses assert the Board erred in dismissing the application.

Holdings: We reverse the Board’s order and remand to the district court for remand to the Board for entry of an order consistent with this decision.

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court

[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]

Summary 2013 WY 78

Order Affirming the District Court’s Order Denying Motion to Withdraw Plea

Case Name: JERRY LEE HOCH v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Docket Number: S‑13‑0017

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Date of Order: June 26, 2013

This matter came before the Court upon its own motion following notification that Appellant has not filed a pro se brief within the time allotted by this Court. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant entered a “no contest” plea to one count of second degree murder. Shortly after the “Judgment and Sentence” was entered, Appellant filed a post-sentence motion to withdraw his plea. On December 12, 2012, the district court entered its “Order Denying Motion to Withdraw Plea.” Appellant took this appeal to challenge that order. On March 25, 2013, Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a “Motion to Withdraw as Counsel,” pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). Following a careful review of the record and the “Anders brief” submitted by counsel, this Court, on April 23, 2013, entered its “Order Granting Permission for Court Appointed Counsel to Withdraw.” That Order notified Appellant that the District Court’s “Order Denying Motion to Withdraw Plea” would be affirmed unless, on or before June 7, 2013, Appellant filed a brief that persuaded this Court that the captioned appeal is not wholly frivolous. Taking note that Appellant, Jerry Lee Hoch, has not filed a brief or other pleading within the time allotted, the Court finds that the district court’s “Order Denying Motion to Withdraw Plea” should be affirmed. It is, therefore,

ORDERED that the District Court’s December 12, 2012, “Order Denying Motion to Withdraw Plea” be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court

[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]

Summary 2013 WY 77

Summary of Decision June 21, 2013

Justice Burke delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: ORO MANAGEMENT, LLC v. R.C. MINERAL & ROCK, LLC

Docket Number: S-12-0223

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Appeal from the District Court of Fremont County, Honorable Norman E. Young, Judge

Representing Appellant (Plaintiff/Defendant): William L. Miller, Miller and Fasse, P.C., Riverton, Wyoming

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff/Defendant): Joel M. Vincent, Vincent and Vincent, Riverton, Wyoming

Date of Decision: June 21, 2013

Facts: Appellant, ORO Management, LLC, (“ORO”) filed suit against Appellee, R.C. Mineral & Rock, LLC (“R.C.”), seeking to set aside a foreclosure sale. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of R.C. ORO challenges that decision in this appeal. ORO contends that summary judgment was improper because R.C. failed to provide sufficient notice of its intent to foreclose, and because a genuine issue of material fact exists with respect to whether the published notice of foreclosure accurately stated the amount due under the loan.

Issues: ORO presents a single issue for our review: Did the district court [err] in granting the Defendant/Appellee’s Motion for Summary Judgment?

Holdings: The district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of R.C. is affirmed.

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court

[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]

Summary 2013 WY 76

Summary of Decision June 18, 2013

Chief Justice Kite delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: MATTHEW OLIVER LEE v. NANCY W. LEE

Docket Number: S‑12‑0233

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Appeal from the District Court of Teton County The Honorable Marvin L. Tyler, Judge

Representing Appellant: Mark J. Longfield of Longfield Law Office, LLC, Jackson, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: Molly Hartman Dearing of Dearing Law Firm, LLC, Jackson, Wyoming.

Date of Decision: June 18, 2013

Facts: Matthew Oliver Lee (Father) appeals from the district court’s order directing him to pay Nancy W. Lee (Mother) $680 per month in child support for the care of their minor child. Although the district court granted Father a downward deviation from the amount calculated with the child support guidelines, he claims the court erred by refusing to apply the joint custody child support statute.

Issues: Father presents a single issue on appeal: Did the district court abuse its discretion in finding that [Father] did not meet the requisite statutory guidelines for joint custody child support?

Mother also queries: Does this [C]ourt lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal because [Father] failed to file a Notice of Appeal from the district court’s final order disposing of the issues in this case within the allotted time provided by Wyo. R. App. P. Rule 2.01?

Holdings: We disagree with some of the district court’s rationale; however, we conclude, in the end, it did not abuse its discretion. Consequently, we affirm.

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court

[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]

Summary 2013 WY 75

Summary of Decision June 18, 2013

Justice Voigt delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: IN THE MATTER OF THE WORKER’S COMPENSATION CLAIM OF:DANIEL L. DECKER v. STATE OF WYOMING, ex rel., WORKERS’ SAFETY AND COMPENSATION DIVISION

Docket Number: S-12-0250

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

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

Representing Appellant (Plaintiff/Defendant): William G. Hibbler of Bill G. Hibbler P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff/Defendant): Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; John D. Rossetti, Deputy Attorney General; Michael J. Finn, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Kelly Roseberry, Assistant Attorney General.

Date of Decision: June 18, 2013

Facts: Daniel L. Decker, the appellant, applied for a permanent partial disability award. The Wyoming Worker’s Safety and Compensation Division’s (Division) denial of that application was upheld by the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) on the basis that the appellant failed to show that he was unable to return to work at a wage at least 95% of his earnings at the time of his injury. The district court affirmed the OAH’s decision, albeit based on a different assessment of the appellant’s ability to earn a living in the aftermath of his injury.

Issues: Was the OAH’s decision supported by substantial evidence and was the decision properly supported by the law?

Holdings: The appellant is appealing his denial of an award of permanent partial disability benefits for failure to show that he is unable to earn at least 95% of his pre-injury wage. There is substantial evidence in the record that supports the OAH’s finding that he earned $3,496.65 per month at the time of his injury. The OAH did misapply the law by comparing this figure to a “snapshot” of the appellant’s post-injury earning history. The appellant has spent the seven years prior to his application for permanent partial disability benefits employed in a position that relies upon his extensive experience and expertise as a sheet metal worker. This period therefore represents the appellant’s true ability to earn a living following his disability. Because he earned an average of $3,546.68 per month over this period, which is more than he earned prior to his injury, the appellant cannot show that he is unable to return to work at a wage at least 95% of his pre-injury wage. We affirm.

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court

[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]

Summary 2013 WY 74

Summary of Decision June 17, 2013

Justice Burke delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: NICHOLAS M. MONTEE v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Docket Number: S-12-0166

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, Honorable Thomas T.C. Campbell, Judge

Representing Appellant (Plaintiff/Defendant): Diane M. Lozano, State Public Defender; Tina N. Olson, Appellate Counsel; David E. Westling, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff/Defendant): Gregory A. Phillips, Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; Theodore R. Racines, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Darrell D. Jackson, Director, Emily N. Thomas, Student Director, and Shaina A. Case, Student Intern, Prosecution Assistance Program, University of Wyoming, College of Law.

Date of Decision: June 17, 2013

Facts: Nicholas M. Montee was convicted of second degree arson. His claim on appeal is that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction.

Issues: Mr. Montee presents a single issue: Was there sufficient evidence to support a conviction of second degree arson? The State presents the same issue with more elaboration: Under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-3-102(a), a person is guilty of second degree arson if he starts a fire with intent to destroy or damage property to collect insurance. At trial, the State presented evidence that Mr. Montee admitted he started a fire in his late mother’s house, which he stood to inherit. Moreover, the State offered circumstantial evidence showing he intentionally started the fire to collect insurance proceeds. Did the State provide sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find Mr. Montee guilty?

Holdings: Mr. Montee’s argument is unpersuasive. The origin of the fire is not a “necessary fact” because it is not one of the elements of the crime of second degree arson. In Mr. Montee’s case, the State was required to prove that on or about the 13th day of February, 2011, in Laramie County, Wyoming, the Defendant, Mr. Montee, started a fire with intent to destroy or damage any property to cause collection of insurance for the loss. It was not required to prove where the fire started. After considering the evidence, the jury might have found that the fire started in the kitchen, in the bedroom closet, or in both places. Wherever the fire originated, the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that Mr. Montee started the fire with the requisite intent. Affirmed.

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court

[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]

Summary 2013 WY 73

Summary of Decision June 17, 2013

Justice Davis delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: AMY C. ROBERTS v. STEVEN LOCKE

Docket Number: S-12-0224

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Appeal from the District Court of Albany County, Honorable Jeffrey A. Donnell, Judge

Representing Appellant (Plaintiff/Defendant): Wendy S. Ross and Mary T. Parsons of Parsons & Associates, P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff/Defendant): Megan L. Hayes and Allen Gardzelewski of Corthell and King, P.C., Laramie, Wyoming

Date of Decision: June 17, 2013

Facts: Appellant Amy Roberts and Appellee Steven Locke divorced in mid-July of 2010. Among their marital assets was a beachfront property in Costa Rica. After a trial, the district court ordered the property sold and the proceeds divided, and later held Roberts in contempt for impeding the sale. She now appeals that order.

Issues: Roberts asks this Court to consider two questions, which we restate as follows: Did the district court have jurisdiction to order Roberts to convey the Costa Rican property to Locke so that he could sell it, with the proceeds of sale to be distributed as provided in the divorce decree? Did the district court abuse its discretion when it found Roberts in civil contempt of court?

In addition, Locke asks us to determine that Roberts lacked reasonable cause for her appeal, and to award him the costs and fees he has expended in responding.

Holdings: Roberts has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in holding her in contempt of court, or that the court lacked jurisdiction to order her to convey her interest in the Costa Rican property to Locke. We therefore affirm and, for the reasons set out above, will award Locke reasonable costs, fees, and damages under W.R.A.P. 10.05. Locke shall submit an appropriate application to this Court within fifteen days from the filing and publication of this opinion.

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court

[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]