Summary 2014 WY 62

Summary of Decision May 14, 2014

Justice Fox delivered the opinion of the Court. Reversed.

Case Name: LEEKS CANYON RANCH, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company; LEEKS CANYON, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company; ELIZABETH LOCKHART and KELLY LOCKHART, wife and husband, Appellants v. CALLAHAN RIVER RANCH, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company; and PORTER RIVER RANCH, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company, Appellees

Docket Number: S-13-0173

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

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

Representing Appellants: Weston W. Reeves and Anna M. Reeves Olson of Park Street Law Office, Casper, Wyoming; and Thomas N. Long and Aaron J. Lyttle of Long Reimer Winegar Beppler LLP, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Reeves.

Representing Appellees: James R. Belcher of Crowley Fleck PLLP, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Date of Decision: May 14, 2014

Facts: The Jackson Hole Hereford Ranch was divided by a complicated series of conveyances between entities controlled by a brother and sister, two grandchildren of the original owner, who were unable to agree on the validity of language purporting to reserve or convey an easement from the sister’s property across the brother’s property. Brother (and the related entities he controls) sought quiet title and injunctive relief, asserting that the requirements for finding an express or implied easement had not been met; sister (and her husband and the related entities they control) filed a counterclaim asserting the existence of a valid easement. The district court found that the parties failed to sufficiently describe the easement as required by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 34-1-141, and that the express easement was therefore void. Additionally, the district court found that because the parties specifically contemplated an easement, but failed to effectuate their intent, an implied easement was inappropriate.

Issues: 1) Did the grantor reserve part of the disputed easement when it conveyed parcels in 1992? 2) Is the easement language in the deeds specific enough to locate the easement in accordance with Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 34-1-141? 3) Is the easement appurtenant to the land or in gross? 4) Did the grantor convey an easement across Parcel 25 when it conveyed Parcel 19 to Elizabeth Lockhart in 1998?

Holdings/Conclusion: We reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Gills and remand with instructions that the district court enter summary judgment in favor of the Lockharts.

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 quotation, 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 2014 WY 61

Summary of Decision May 12, 2014

Justice Davis delivered the opinion for the court. Affirmed.

Case Name: IN THE MATTER OF THE WORKER’S COMPENSATION CLAIM OF: CHRISTINA S. HIRSCH, AN EMPLOYEE OF BORDER FOODS, INC. v. STATE OF WYOMING ex rel. WYOMING WORKERS’ SAFETY AND COMPENSATION DIVISION

Docket Number: S-13-0162

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

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

Representing Appellant: Jack D. Edwards of Edwards Law Office, P.C., Etna, Wyoming

Representing Appellee: Peter K. Michael, Wyoming Attorney General; John D. Rossetti, Deputy Attorney General; Michael J. Finn, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Samantha Caselli, Assistant Attorney General

Date of Decision: May 12, 2014

Facts: Appellant Christina Hirsch sought worker’s compensation benefits for back pain she believed was related to an earlier workplace accident. The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) upheld the Wyoming Workers’ Safety and Compensation Division’s (Division) denial of temporary total disability and medical pay benefits, and the district court affirmed the OAH decision. Ms. Hirsch appeals to this Court, claiming that the OAH erred by failing to find a causal connection between the workplace accident and her delayed back pain.

Issues: While Ms. Hirsch raises several issues on appeal, we find the dispositive question to be whether there is substantial evidence to support the OAH’s denial of benefits before a remand from the district court for supplementation of the record. We therefore restate the controlling issue as follows: Were the OAH’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence?

Holdings/Conclusion: Ms. Hirsch did not carry her burden of persuading the OAH that the May 2009 incident caused her later back pain. The record contains substantial evidence without the contested supplementation to support the OAH’s initial decision to deny benefits. 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 2014 WY 60

Summary of Decision May 8, 2014

Justice Fox delivered the opinion of the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: GILBERT ORTIZ, JR. v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Docket Number: S-13-0127

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: Dion J. Custis, Dion J. Custis, PC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: Peter K. Michael, Wyoming Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; Jenny L. Craig, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Jeffrey S. Pope, Assistant Attorney General; Jennifer E. Zissou, Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Ms. Zissou.

Date of Decision: May 8, 2014

Facts: A jury found Gilbert Ortiz, Jr., guilty of three counts of second-degree sexual assault. Mr. Ortiz raises seven issues on appeal.

Issues: 1) Was Mr. Ortiz denied his right to a speedy trial? 2) Did the district court properly admit forensic interview evidence as a prior consistent statement? 3) Did testimony from a forensic interviewer or a detective improperly vouch for the credibility of the victim? 4) Was the Bill of Particulars sufficient for Mr. Ortiz to adequately prepare a defense? 5) Did the circuit court abuse its discretion when it granted an ex parte motion quashing Mr. Ortiz’s subpoena to call the victim and her mother as witnesses at a preliminary hearing? 6) Did the district court abuse its discretion when it denied admission of sexualized behavior evidence on relevancy and hearsay grounds? 7) Did the State commit prosecutorial misconduct when it referenced a non-religious quote from a church sign in its opening statement?

Holdings/Conclusion: Mr. Ortiz has presented no basis to reverse on any of the issues he raised on appeal. The conviction 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 quotation, 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 2014 WY 59

Summary of Decision May 7, 2014

Justice Hill delivered the opinion of the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: DONALD GILMER v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Docket Number: S-13-0249

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: Donald Gilmer, pro se.

Representing Appellee: Peter K. Michael, Wyoming Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; Jenny L. Craig, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Jennifer Zissou, Assistant Attorney General.

Date of Decision: May 7, 2014

Facts: Donald Gilmer filed a motion to reduce his sentence based on his good behavior while incarcerated. The district court denied the motion, and Gilmer appeals.

Issue: Gilmer filed his appeal pro se, and in his statement of the issue he contends that the district court’s decision to deny the motion to reduce his sentence was wrong and unjust. The State frames the issue on appeal as follows: Gilmer pled guilty to strangulation of a household member and domestic battery. After imposition of his sentence, he filed a motion for sentence reduction due to his good behavior while incarcerated. Did the district court abuse its discretion when it denied this motion?

Holdings/Conclusion: The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Gilmer’s motion to reduce his sentence. 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 quotation, 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 2014 WY 58

Summary of Decision May 7, 2014

Justice Hill delivered the opinion of the Court. Dismissed.

Case Name: MARK W. HITZ v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Docket Number: S-13-0190

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

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, the Honorable Steven K. Sharpe, Judge

Representing Appellant: Mark W. Hitz, pro se.

Representing Appellee: Peter K. Michael, Wyoming Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; and Caitlin Wallace, Assistant Attorney General.

Date of Decision: May 7, 2014

Facts: Mark Hitz was placed on probation for a felony larceny conviction, subject to placement in an adult community correctional facility. A little over a month after that placement, Hitz checked out of the facility and failed to return. Hitz pled guilty to felony escape from official detention, his probation was revoked, and he was sentenced on both the larceny and escape convictions.
Approximately a year and a half after the district court reinstated Hitz’s felony larceny sentence and imposed a sentence for the escape conviction, Hitz filed a combined Rule 35 motion for sentence reduction and motion for injunction. Through the motion for injunction, Hitz sought an order enjoining the Wyoming Board of Parole from interpreting Wyoming law in a manner that would preclude him from parole eligibility. The district court ordered that it lacked authority to rule on Hitz’s Rule 35 motion on the ground that the motion was untimely, depriving the court of jurisdiction. The court also ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Board of Parole’s interpretation of Wyoming law or to consider Hitz’s request for injunctive relief.

Issue: Hitz submitted a pro se appeal and did not include a statement of the issue. The State framed the issue on appeal as follows: After a criminal case concludes, district courts retain limited jurisdiction over the defendant. They can only consider the motions provided for in the Rules of Criminal Procedure and, for even these motions, the courts are restricted by the parameters the Rules establish. For example, a motion for sentence reduction must be filed within one year of sentencing. Did the district court properly deny Hitz’s motion for sentence reduction as untimely and correctly deny his motion for lack of jurisdiction?

Holdings/Conclusion: We conclude that the district court was without subject matter jurisdiction to consider Hitz’s combined motion for sentence reduction and injunctive relief and that, consequently, this Court is without jurisdiction to consider this appeal. The appeal is 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 quotation, 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 Order Reversing Judgment and Sentence 2014 WY 57

Order Reversing Judgment and Sentence

Case Name: Robert J. Parks v. The State of Wyoming

Docket Number: S-13-0278

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

Date of Order: May 7, 2014

Order Reversing Judgment and Sentence

This matter came before the Court upon a “Stipulated Motion to Reverse and Remand,” e-filed herein April 23, 2014. After a careful review of the motion and the file, this Court finds as follows. Appellant pled guilty to two felonies: kidnapping and sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree. According to Appellant’s brief, prior to entry of those pleas, the district court advised Appellant that he could lose the “right to own and possess certain types of weapons.” In his brief, Appellant contends his convictions should be reversed because he was not given the firearms advisement required by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-11-507. The State of Wyoming agrees.

This Court agrees as well. While the district court’s firearms advisement likely satisfied § 7-11-507(a)(i), the advisement did not satisfy § 7-11-507(a)(ii). Here is what that statute requires:

§ 7-11-507. Advisement of loss of firearms rights upon conviction.
(a) No judgment of conviction shall be entered upon a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to any charge which may result in the disqualification of the defendant to possess firearms pursuant to the provisions of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), (9) and 924(a)(2) or other federal law unless the defendant was advised in open court by the judge:
(i) Of the collateral consequences that may arise from that conviction pursuant to the provisions of 18 U.S.C. §§ 921(a)(33), 922(g)(1), (9) and 924(a)(2); and
(ii) That if the defendant is a peace officer, member of the armed forces, hunting guide, security guard or engaged in any other profession or occupation requiring the carrying or possession of a firearm, that he may now, or in the future, lose the right to engage in that profession or occupation should he be convicted.

As this Court has noted, “the legislature directed that no judgment of conviction be entered without advisement as to the potential loss of firearms privileges and its effect on employment in occupations requiring an employee to possess a gun.” Balderson v. State, 2013 WY 107, ¶ 21, 309 P.3d 809 (Wyo. 2013) (emphasis supplied). Therefore, based on Balderson, Starrett v. State, 2012 WY 133, 286 P.3d 1033 (Wyo. 2012); Cobb v. State, 2013 WY 142, 312 P.3d 827 (Wyo. 2013), and Pedraza v. State, 2014 WY 24, 318 P.3d 812 (Wyo. 2014) this Court must reverse Appellant’s convictions. It is, therefore,

ORDERED that the “Judgment and Sentence” entered on August 16, 2013, in Converse County District Court Criminal Action No. 4432, be, and hereby is, reversed and vacated. This matter is remanded to the district court for proceedings consistent with this order.

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 2014 WY 56

Summary of Decision May 5, 2014

Justice Burke delivered the opinion of the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: IN THE MATTER OF A VIOLATION OF THE WYOMING RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE PRACTICES ACT BY CALCON MUTUAL MORTGAGE CORPORATION: CALCON MUTUAL MORTGAGE CORP v. STATE OF WYOMING, ex rel., WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF AUDIT, DIVISION OF BANKING

Docket Number: S-13-0130

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: James R. Salisbury and Anthony M. Reyes, Riske & Salisbury, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Salisbury.

Representing Appellee: Peter K. Michael, Attorney General; Martin L. Hardsocg, Deputy Attorney General; Ryan T. Schelhaas, Senior Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Mr. Schelhaas.

Date of Decision: May 5, 2014

Facts: The Wyoming Department of Audit, Division of Banking (Division) conducted a compliance examination of Appellant, CalCon Mutual Mortgage Corporation (CalCon), and determined that, in six separate brokering transactions, CalCon had received application fees and “yield spread premiums” exceeding those previously disclosed to its customers in violation of the Wyoming Residential Mortgage Practices Act. The Division sought reimbursement of the fees charged in those transactions. CalCon objected and the matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) for a contested case hearing. The OAH determined that CalCon had violated the Act and the State Banking Commissioner subsequently ordered CalCon to reimburse the fees. CalCon filed a petition for review in the district court, and the district court affirmed. CalCon appeals from the district court’s decision.

Issues: 1) Whether the Office of Administrative Hearings erred as a matter of law in its construction and interpretation of Wyoming Statute § 40-23-114(d). 2) Whether the decision of the Office of Administrative Hearings is arbitrary, capricious, and not supported by substantial evidence.

Holdings/Conclusion: Because CalCon received fees in excess of the fees originally disclosed to the borrowers in the transactions at issue, and because it did not provide a clear written explanation of the increased fees or the reason for charging fees exceeding those which were previously disclosed, the Banking Commissioner properly concluded that CalCon was statutorily precluded from accepting the increased fees.
In its second issue, CalCon contends the Commissioner’s decision was per se “arbitrary and capricious” because the Division has not used its regulatory powers to define the phrase “most recent good faith estimate.” We find no merit in this argument. We have already determined that the plain language of the statute is sufficient to convey the meaning of the phrase “most recent good faith estimate.” Accordingly, we conclude that the Commissioner’s decision was not arbitrary or capricious. 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 quotation, 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 2014 WY 55

Summary of Order April 23, 2014

Order Suspending Attorney from the Practice of Law

Case Name: BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, WYOMING STATE BAR v. SCOTT M. POWERS, WSB No. 6 3188

Docket Number: D-14-0005

The full report and recommendation can be found here: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

This matter came before the Court upon a “Report and Recommendation for Suspension,” filed herein April 11, 2014 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). 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 Scott M. Powers should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of nine months. 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 Scott M. Powers shall be, and hereby is, suspended from the practice of law for a period of nine months, beginning May 1, 2014; 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 for the Wyoming State Bar, Mr. Powers shall reimburse the Wyoming State Bar the amount of $50.00, representing the costs incurred in handling this matter, as well as pay the administrative fee of $500.00. Mr. Powers shall pay the total amount of $550.00 to the Clerk of the Board of Professional Responsibility on or before June 2, 2014; 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 incorporated Report and Recommendation for Suspension, as a matter coming regularly before this Court as a public record; and it is further

ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(a)(iv) 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 cause a copy of this Order Suspending Attorney from the Practice of Law to be served upon Respondent Scott M. Powers.

DATED this 23rd day of April, 2014.

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 2014 WY 54

Summary of Decision April 23, 2014

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

Case Name: GREGORY MATTHEWS v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Docket Number: S-13-0160

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

Original Proceeding Petition for Writ of Review, District Court of Teton County, the Honorable Timothy C. Day, Judge

Representing Appellant: Robert E. Schroth, Sr. of Schroth & Schroth, LLC, Jackson, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: Peter K. Michael, Wyoming Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; Jennifer E. Zissou, Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Ms. Zissou.

Date of Decision: April 23, 2014

Facts: Gregory Matthews challenges the district court order affirming his circuit court conviction for interference with a peace officer. Mr. Matthews entered into a conditional plea agreement, pursuant to which a charge of driving under the influence against him was dropped, and he pled guilty to the interference charge, reserving the right to appeal three issues. The district court affirmed the circuit court’s rulings on those three issues, and Mr. Matthews filed a petition for writ of review, which was granted by this Court.

Issues: The parties raise several issues. We will address only one issue that was not addressed by either party, because it is dispositive: Did Mr. Matthews enter a proper conditional guilty plea pursuant to W.R.Cr.P. 11 (a)(2)?

Holdings/Conclusion: We reverse and remand this matter to the district court with instructions to proceed in accordance 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 2014 WY 53

Summary of Decision April 23, 2014

Justice Hill delivered the opinion of the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: RENE VARGAS v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Docket Number: S-13-0084

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

Appeal from the District Court of Carbon County, the Honorable Wade E. Waldrip, Judge

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

Representing Appellee: Peter K. Michael, Wyoming Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; and Jennifer Zissou, Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Ms. Zissou.

Date of Decision: April 23, 2014

Facts: Rene Vargas was found guilty of two counts of conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance and two counts of conspiracy to take a controlled substance into a state penal institution. On appeal he contends that his right to speedy trial was violated and that the district court abused its discretion when it denied his motion to continue.

Issues: 1) Was Mr. Vargas denied a right to a speedy trial due to the fact that the time between his arraignment and trial was 201 days, in violation of the protections afforded by W.R.Cr.P. 48? 2) Did the trial court abuse its discretion by denying Mr. Vargas’s motion for continuance without good cause and thereby denying Mr. Vargas an opportunity to prepare for trial?

Holdings/Conclusion: Vargas’s right to speedy trial was not violated under the constitution or W.R.Cr.P. 48. Also, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Vargas’s motion for continuance. 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 quotation, 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 2014 WY 52

Justice Davis delivered the opinion of the Court. Affirmed in part and Reversed in part.

Case Name: WILLIAM E. MECKEM, individually; LORRAINE W. MECKEM, individually; and DUBOIS HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION, INC., a Wyoming corporation v. WILLIAM CARTER and DANNA CARTER, Husband and Wife

Docket Number: S-13-0172

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

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

Representing Appellants: William L. Miller of Miller & Fasse, P.C., Riverton, Wyoming

Representing Appellees: Aaron J. Vincent of Vincent Law Office, Riverton, Wyoming

Date of Decision: April 22, 2014

Facts: Appellants William and Lorraine Meckem challenge an order holding them in civil contempt for violating a judgment directing them to remove obstructions from a road easement that traverses their property.

Issues: 1) Whether the district court exceeded its authority to amend its original judgment with its order of contempt? 2) Whether the district court erred in finding that the Appellants were in contempt of court?

Holdings/Conclusion: We affirm the district court’s determination that Appellants’ conduct was contumacious. However, the district court erred when it ordered Appellants to pay a penalty of $100 per day to the court until the obstructions are removed, and we therefore reverse that part of the order.

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 quotation, 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 2014 WY 51

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

Case Name: KIMBERLY SHINDELL v. ROGER SHINDELL

Docket Number: S-13-0117

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: Robert E. Schroth, Sr., Jackson, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: Roger Shindell, pro se.

Guardian ad Litem: Jean A. Day, Jackson, Wyoming. No appearance.

Date of Decision: April 22, 2014

Facts: Kimberly Shindell (Mother) appeals from the district court’s order finding her in civil contempt of court for refusing to comply with the district court’s orders regarding Roger Shindell’s (Father) rights to visitation and communication with their two daughters. She challenges the district court’s finding of contempt and the remedies it imposed.

Issues: Mother presents the following issues on appeal:

1. DID THE DISTRICT COURT ERR IN FINDING APPELLANT/MOTHER IN INDIRECT CIVIL CONTEMPT?

2. DID THE DISTRICT COURT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION, COMMIT PROCEDURAL ERROR, AND VIOLATE A PRINCIPLE OF LAW BY ORDERING APPELLANT/MOTHER TO PAY FOR ALL TRAVEL-RELATED COSTS FOR HER CHILDREN TO VISIT APPELLEE/FATHER?

3. DID THE DISTRICT COURT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION, COMMIT PROCEDURAL ERROR, AND VIOLATE A PRINCIPLE OF LAW BY ORDERING APPELLANT/MOTHER TO POST A $10,000.00 BOND IN THE EVENT SHE INTERFERES WITH HER CHILDREN VISITING APPELLEE/FATHER?

4. DID THE DISTRICT COURT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION, COMMIT PROCEDURAL ERROR, AND VIOLATE A PRINCIPLE OF LAW BY ORDERING APPELLANT/MOTHER TO PAY APPELLEE/FATHER’S ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS?

Father, appearing pro se, claims the district court properly found Mother in contempt of court and its remedies were appropriate. He also asserts that certain aspects of the district court’s order were not appealable and he is entitled to sanctions against Mother and her appellate counsel.

Holdings/Conclusion: The district court did not abuse its discretion by finding Mother in indirect civil contempt of court. [T]he district court did not abuse its discretion by requiring Mother, as part of the sanctions for her contempt, to pay the girls’ travel expenses for winter break 2012-13 and spring break 2013. The district court did not abuse its discretion by requiring Mother to post a bond in an effort to hold her accountable to the court’s visitation order and provide immediate monetary security to Father in the event she refuses to comply. The district court stated in its findings of fact that it was ordering Mother to pay Father’s attorney fees because she had acted in defiance of the divorce decree and other court orders. Given the district court’s clear authority to award attorney fees and costs under these circumstances, the district court’s order was not erroneous. 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 quotation, 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 2014 WY 50

Summary of Decision April 17, 2014

Justice Burke delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: RONALD S. KAMMERER, JR. v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Docket Number: S-13-0070

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

Appeal from the District Court of Campbell County the Honorable Michael N. Deegan, Judge

Representing Appellant: Office of the State Public Defender: Diane M. Lozano, State Public Defender; Tina N. Olson, Appellate Counsel; Kirk A. Morgan, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel. Argument by Mr. Morgan.

Representing Appellee: Peter K. Michael, Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; Jeffrey S. Pope, Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Mr. Delicath.

Date of Decision: April 17, 2014

Facts: Appellant, Ronald S. Kammerer, Jr., challenges his conviction for failure to register as a sex offender, in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-19-302(j) and Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-19-307(a)(d). He contends that Wyoming’s Sex Offender Registration Act (Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 7-19-301 through 7-19-307) (“WSORA” or “the Act”) violates the prohibitions against ex post facto laws contained in the United States and Wyoming Constitutions.

Issues: Appellant presents the following issues: 1. Does Wyoming’s Sex Offender Registration Act violate the United States Constitution, Art. 1, § 10, prohibition against enacting ex post facto laws? 2. Does Wyoming’s Sex Offender Registration Act violate the Wyoming Constitution’s prohibition of ex post facto laws?

The State presents an additional issue: 1. Did the district court commit plain error by not finding that the Wyoming Constitution provides greater protection than its federal analog and that the Wyoming Sex Offender Registration Act violates that greater protection?

Holdings/Conclusion: We agree with the State. Both constitutions clearly prohibit the passage of ex post facto laws. Consequently, in order to find that the Wyoming Constitution provides “greater” protection, we would be forced to conclude that Wyoming’s definition of an ex post facto law, as applied to this case, is broader than the definition of that term as it is used in the United States Constitution. We have no reason to draw such a conclusion, and Appellant has provided no cogent argument or persuasive authority to support a claim that Wyoming’s definition of an ex post facto law is broader than the federal definition. To the contrary, we expressly adopted the Supreme Court’s definition of an ex post facto law, as one “which makes more burdensome the punishment for a crime, after its commission,” in Smith v. State, ¶ 55, 199 P.3d at 1068. Accordingly, we find no merit in Appellant’s claim that the Wyoming Constitution provides greater protection against ex post facto laws than its federal counterpart. 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 2014 WY 49

Summary of Decision April 17, 2014

Justice Burke delivered the opinion of the Court. Reversed and Remanded.

Case Name: AUSTON DAVIS COY v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Docket Number: S-13-0136

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: P. Craig Silva, Williams, Porter, Day & Neville, P.C., Casper, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: Peter K. Michael, Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; Jeffrey S. Pope, Assistant Attorney General.

Date of Decision: April 17, 2014

Facts: Appellant, Auston Davis Coy, was arrested in 2011 and charged with three crimes. At the time of his arrest, Mr. Coy was on probation for crimes he had committed in 2008. In addition to charging Mr. Coy with the new crimes, the State also sought to revoke Mr. Coy’s probation. Prior to trial, Mr. Coy and the State entered into a plea agreement. The terms of that plea agreement are the crux of this appeal. Mr. Coy contends that the sentence imposed was not in accordance with his plea agreement. He seeks modification of the sentence to conform to the terms of the plea agreement.

Issue: Did the district court enter an illegal sentence?

Holdings/Conclusion: We find that the sentence imposed was not in accord with the plea agreement and was an illegal sentence because it cannot be completed in a “single stretch” or without interruption by another prison sentence. We reverse and remand for entry of an amended 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 quotation, 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 2014 WY 48

Summary of Decision April 11, 2014

Chief Justice Kite delivered the opinion of the Court. Reversed and Remanded.

Case Name: MARIAN I. ERDELYI v. BRADLEY T. LOTT

Docket Number: S-13-0116

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

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

Representing Appellant: C.M. Aron and Galen B. Woelk of Aron and Hennig, LLP, Laramie, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Woelk.

Representing Appellee: James K. Lubing and Leah K. Corrigan of Lubing & Corrigan, LLC, Jackson, Wyoming. Argument by Ms. Corrigan.

Date of Decision: April 11, 2014

Facts: Marian I. Erdelyi filed an action against her stockbroker, Bradley T. Lott, for fraud and constructive fraud. After a trial, a jury found that Mr. Lott committed constructive fraud but that Ms. Erdelyi knew or in the exercise of due diligence should have known before February 10, 2007, that the fraud had occurred. Based on the jury’s findings, the district court entered judgment holding Ms. Erdelyi’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations and dismissed the action.
On appeal, Ms. Erdelyi contends the district court erred in instructing the jury on negligence and comparative fault in this fraud action. She also asserts the district court erred in instructing the jury, for purposes of applying the statute of limitations, to determine whether she knew or should have known with the exercise of due diligence before February 10, 2007, that the fraud had occurred, because there was no evidence to support the instruction.

Issues: Whether the trial court’s jury instructions, taken as a whole, misstated the law in the following particulars: (A) By instructing the jury to compare a victim’s fault on a claim of fraud, and including the victim on the verdict form; (B) By imposing a negligence standard on [Ms. Erdelyi] with regard to discovery of her stockbroker’s fraud; and (C) By instructing the jury to determine the date [Ms. Erdelyi] discovered her stockbroker’s fraud, when there was no evidence of any such discovery presented.

Holdings/Conclusion: We hold that when the law is properly applied, the evidence did not support a finding that Ms. Erdelyi could have discovered the fraud sooner and it was error to dismiss the case based on the statute of limitations. We, therefore, reverse the judgment and remand for a new trial.

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 quotation, 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 2014 WY 47

Summary of Decision April 11, 2014

Justice Fox delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: WILLIAM TALLERDY v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Docket Number: S-13-0250

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: William Tallerdy, pro se.

Representing Appellee: Peter K. Michael, Wyoming Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; Jennifer E. Zissou, Assistant Attorney General.

Date of Decision: April 11, 2014

Facts: William Tallerdy appealed the district court’s order granting in part and denying in part his motion to correct his sentence.

Issue: The issue presented by Mr. Tallerdy is whether the district court properly credited him for time served.

Holdings/Conclusion: We find that the district court properly credited him an additional 169 days for time served, and therefore 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 2014 WY 46

Summary of Decision April 9, 2014

Justice Davis delivered the opinion of the Court. Reversed.

Case Name: SAMUEL P. SNELL v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Docket Number: S-13-0164

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

Appeal from the District Court of Campbell County, the Honorable Thomas W. Rumpke, Judge

Representing Appellant: Office of the State Public Defender: Diane Lozano, State Public Defender; Tina N. Olson, Chief Appellate Counsel; Diane E. Courselle, Director, and Grant Smith of the Defender Aid Program, University of Wyoming College of Law. Argument by Mr. Smith.

Representing Appellee: Peter K. Michael, Wyoming Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; Jeffrey Pope, Assistant Attorney General; Caitlin Young, Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Ms. Young.

Date of Decision: April 9, 2014

Facts: Appellant Samuel P. Snell was arrested and charged with driving while under the influence of alcohol. He filed a motion to suppress the results of his blood alcohol concentration (BAC) test, claiming that the affidavit supporting the search warrant authorizing his blood to be taken for testing failed to demonstrate probable cause. The motion was denied, and Appellant was subsequently convicted by a jury of driving with a BAC of at least 0.08% for a fourth or subsequent time in ten years, a felony. He now challenges the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress as well as the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction.

Issue: Did the affidavit supporting the application for a warrant to draw Appellant’s blood contain sufficient information for a judicial officer to make an independent judgment that there was probable cause that Appellant had been driving while intoxicated?

Holdings/Conclusion: We find that the affidavit in support of the search warrant is deficient because it contains bare conclusions. Consequently, we must hold that the district court erred in denying Appellant’s motion to suppress the results of his BAC test. We reverse.

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 quotation, 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 2014 WY 45

Summary of Decision April 8, 2014

Justice Davis delivered the opinion of the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: TY ROUSH v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

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

Docket Number: S-13-0111

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

Representing Appellant: Office of the State Public Defender: Diane Lozano, State Public Defender; Tina N. Olson, Chief Appellate Counsel; Kirk A. Morgan, Senior Assistant Appellant Counsel.

Representing Appellee: Peter K. Michael, Wyoming Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; Jeffrey Pope, Assistant Attorney General.

Date of Decision: April 8, 2014

Facts: Appellant Ty Roush entered a conditional guilty plea to a single count of third degree sexual assault, a violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-304(a)(i), reserving the right to challenge the district court’s conclusion that the State could prosecute him under that statute, which was repealed in 2007.

Issue: Did Wyoming’s general saving statute, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 8-1-107 (LexisNexis 2013), permit the State to initiate a third degree sexual assault prosecution in 2011 for conduct which preceded the repeal of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-304(a)(i) (LexisNexis 2005) (repealed 2007) by more than four years?

Holdings/Conclusion: The district court correctly concluded that the State could prosecute Roush under a provision of the third degree sexual assault statute which survived that provision’s 2007 repeal by virtue of Wyoming’s general saving statute. We consequently affirm the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss, and likewise affirm the judgment and 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 quotation, 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.]

ORDER 2014 WY 44

Order Affirming Appellant’s Conviction and Sentence and Order Remanding to District Court for Correction of Sentencing Order

Case Name: Jacob Donald Fritz v. The State of Wyoming

Docket Number: S-13-0213

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

Date of Order: April 8, 2014

ORDER AFFIRMING APPELLANT’S CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AND ORDER REMANDING TO DISTRICT COURT FOR CORRECTION OF SENTENCING ORDER

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 pled guilty to one count of felony interference with a peace officer. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-5-204(b). This is Appellant’s direct appeal from the resulting conviction. On January 16, 2014, 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 February 5, 2014, entered its “Order Granting Permission for Court Appointed Counsel to Withdraw.” That Order notified Appellant that the district court’s “Sentencing Order” would be affirmed unless, on or before March 25, 2014, Appellant filed a brief that persuaded this Court the captioned appeal is not wholly frivolous. Taking note that Appellant, Jacob Donald Fritz, has not filed a brief or other pleading within the time allotted, the Court finds that the Appellant’s conviction and sentence should be affirmed.

This Court also finds this matter should be remanded to the district court for correction of the “Sentencing Order.” The Court notes that, although Appellant was given an adequate firearms advisement (as required by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-11-507(a)), the district court’s “Sentencing Order” does not include a statement to that effect, as required by W.R.Cr.P. 32(b)(1)(E) and Starrett v. State, 2012 WY 133, ¶¶ 11-12, 19, 286 P.3d 1033, 1037-38, 1040 (Wyo. 2012). It is, therefore,

ORDERED that Appellant’s conviction and sentence are hereby affirmed; and it is further
ORDERED that this matter is remanded to the district court for entry of an amended sentencing order, which shall include the firearms advisement required by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-11-507(a).

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 2014 WY 43

Summary of Decision April 3, 2014

Justice Davis delivered the opinion of the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: TRAVELOCITY.COM LP, PRICELINE.COM INCORPORATED, HOTELS.COM, LP, HOTWIRE, INC., EXPEDIA, INC., ORBITZ, LLC, AND TRIP NETWORK, INC. (d/b/a CHEAPTICKETS.COM) v. WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

Docket Number: S-13-0078

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

W.R.A.P. 12.09(b) Certification from the District Court of Laramie County The Honorable Peter G. Arnold, Judge.

Representing Appellant: Lawrence J. Wolfe, P.C., and Brynn A. Hvidston of Holland & Hart, LLP, Cheyenne, Wyoming; Jeffrey A. Rossman of McDermott Will & Emery LLP, Chicago, Illinois. Argument by Mr. Rossman.

Representing Appellee: Peter K. Michael, Wyoming Attorney General; Martin L. Hardsocg, Deputy Attorney General; Cathleen D. Parker, Senior Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Ms. Parker.

Date of Decision: April 3, 2014

Facts: Appellee Wyoming Department of Revenue (Department) directed Appellants, which are on-line travel companies (OTCs), to collect and remit tax on the total amounts they collected from customers booking hotel rooms in Wyoming. Appellants appealed the order to the State Board of Equalization (SBOE), which upheld it. The OTCs petitioned the First Judicial District Court for review, and it certified the case to this Court, which accepted the certification.

Appellants argue that Wyoming’s sales tax statutes do not reach the markup they charge for a variety of reasons. They contend that application of Wyoming sales tax to them violates the Dormant Commerce Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and the Due Process provisions of the United States Constitution. They also urge us to find that it violates the federal Internet Tax Freedom Act.

Issues:
1. Did the SBOE err in finding that the full amount paid to the OTCs for a reservation of a hotel room in Wyoming was taxable by the Department because:

a. It concluded that the OTCs are “vendors” of lodging services under Wyoming Statute § 39-15-101 et. seq.?

b. It concluded that the amount the OTCs consider to be “online reservation facilitation fees” were instead part of the sales price for “lodging services” under Wyoming’s sales tax?

c. It concluded that the amount the OTCs believe to be a service fee is taxable in Wyoming?

2. Does the Department’s imposition of sales tax on the full amount the OTCs collect violate the Dormant Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution?

3. Does imposition of the sales tax on the full amount the OTCs collect violate the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution?

Holdings/Conclusion: We find that the Wyoming Legislature intended to tax the entire amount an OTC customer pays for the right to occupy a hotel room in Wyoming. We also conclude that the sales/lodging tax statutes are constitutional when applied as the Department has applied them, and that imposition of sales/lodging tax on the entire amount paid for the right to occupy a room does not violate the Internet Tax Freedom Act. We therefore affirm the SBOE decision upholding the Department’s application of the tax.

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 quotation, 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 2014 WY 42

Summary of Decision March 31, 2014

Justice Hill delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: ROBERT C. CARSON v. STATE OF WYOMING, ex rel., WYOMING WORKERS’ SAFETY AND COMPENSATION DIVISION

Docket Number: S-13-0144

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

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

Representing Appellant: Katherine L. Mead of Mead & Mead, Jackson, WY

Representing Appellee: Peter K. Michael, Wyoming Attorney General; John D. Rossetti, Deputy Attorney General; Michael J. Finn; Senior Assistant Attorney General; and John A. Brodie, Assistant Attorney General

Date of Decision: March 31, 2014

Facts: On January 19, 2006, Robert Carson and his passenger Hugh Sharp were involved in a serious car accident in Snake River Canyon. Carson sustained multiple injuries, including a severe head injury, and Sharp was killed in the accident. In 2007 the Wyoming Workers’ Safety and Compensation Division (Division) denied Carson’s claims for worker’s compensation benefits because he failed to show that the injuries he sustained in the automobile accident arose out of and in the course of his employment with Metrocities Mortgage, LLC (Metrocities). After a contested case hearing, the Division’s denial of benefits was upheld. Carson did not appeal this determination.

Eight months after the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) denied Carson’s claim for worker’s compensation benefits, a jury sitting in a federal district court case brought by Hugh Sharp’s widow against Carson for wrongful death found that Carson was acting within the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident. After the federal district court jury verdict, Carson sought to reopen this case contending there was newly discovered evidence to support that he was acting within the course of his employment at the time of the accident. After rulings by the district court and this Court, the OAH eventually affirmed its earlier decision from 2008 that Carson was not acting within the course of his employment.

Issue: Carson presents one issue for our review: As a matter of law, did the OAH commit error when it failed to apply collateral estoppel to the issue of whether Robert Carson was in the course and scope of employment at the time of his injury?

Holdings/Conclusion: We affirm the district court’s order affirming the administrative action taken by the OAH.

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 2014 WY 41

Summary of Decision March 25, 2014

Justice Davis delivered the opinion of the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: STATE OF WYOMING ex rel. WEST PARK HOSPITAL DISTRICT and YELLOWSTONE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CENTER v. BRYAN A. SKORIC, Park County and Prosecuting Attorney, in his official capacity

Docket Numbers: S-13-0110, S-13-0153

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

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

Representing Appellants: Larry B. Jones and Chris Edwards of Simpson, Kepler & Edwards, LLC, the Cody, Wyoming division of Burg Simpson Eldredge Hersh and Jardine, P.C., Cody, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Jones.

Representing Appellee: James F. Davis, Deputy Park County Attorney, Cody, Wyoming.

Date of Decision: March 25, 2014

Facts: In these consolidated appeals, Appellants West Park Hospital District and Yellowstone Behavioral Health Center challenge the district court’s denial of their petition for a writ of mandamus directing the Park County Attorney to commence court proceedings and to appear at initial emergency detention hearings under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 25-10-109 (LexisNexis 2013), as well as to appear and prosecute the case in chief at the involuntary hospitalization hearings under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 25-10-110 (LexisNexis 2013).

Issues: 1) What are the statutorily required duties of a Wyoming county attorney in civil commitment proceedings under Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 25-10-109 and 110? 2) Did the district court abuse its discretion in denying Appellants’ petition for writ of mandamus?

Holdings/Conclusion: We agree with Appellants that the statutes in question do require a county attorney’s office to participate in civil commitment proceedings as they claim it should. However, we also find that the statutes are ambiguous, and that the district court therefore did not abuse its discretion by refusing to issue a writ of mandamus. Therefore, although we disagree with the district court as to the county attorney’s duty in civil commitment cases, 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 quotation, 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 2014 WY 40

Summary of Decision March 21, 2014

Chief Justice Kite delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed, as modified.

Case Name: IN THE MATTER OF THE WORKER’S COMPENSATION CLAIM OF: RICHARD J. DELACASTRO v. STATE OF WYOMING, ex rel., WYOMING WORKERS’ SAFETY AND COMPENSATION DIVISION

Docket Number: S-13-0141

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

Representing Appellee: Peter K. Michael, 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: March 21, 2014

Facts: Richard J. Delacastro suffered a work-related injury to his right hip in 2007. In 2009, the State of Wyoming ex rel. Wyoming Workers’ Safety and Compensation Division (the Division) denied, as unrelated to his work injury, requests for testing and treatment of pain in his back. After a contested case hearing, the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) reversed the Division’s final determination, directed payment of Mr. Delacastro’s outstanding medical bills and ordered that one additional test be performed to determine whether his back problems were associated with his work injury. The parties submitted the results of the test, which were normal, and the hearing examiner ordered that Mr. Delacastro was not entitled to further benefits for his back.

Issues: Mr. Delacastro presents the following issues for this Court’s consideration: 1. Is the OAH’s decision denying all future medical benefits for [Mr. Delacastro’s] ongoing right hip and thigh pain supported by substantial evidence, arbitrary or otherwise contrary to law? 2. Is the OAH’s decision denying additional diagnostic testing supported by substantial evidence, arbitrary or otherwise contrary to law . . .?

The Division phrases the issue on appeal as: In 2007, Delacastro injured his right hip, and the Department ruled this was a compensable work place injury. Nearly two years later, in 2009, Delacastro returned to his physician and underwent an MRI to diagnose “back pain.” The Division denied coverage for Delacastro’s 2009 medical treatment, concluding it was unrelated to his 2007 hip injury. At the contested case hearing, Delacastro argued that he actually injured his back in 2007, not his hip, and this 2007 back injury caused his 2009 symptoms. After ordering further investigation, the hearing examiner ruled that Delacastro failed to meet his burden to prove that he suffered a back injury in 2007 and that this back injury caused his symptoms in 2009. Does substantial evidence support the hearing examiner’s decision?

Holdings: The district court affirmed the OAH decision, and Mr. Delacastro appealed to this Court. We conclude substantial evidence supports the OAH decision that Mr. Delacastro did not satisfy his burden of proving additional testing and treatment of his back were related to his work injury; however, we clarify that future treatment associated with the original hip injury may be submitted for administrative review. We affirm, as modified.

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 2014 WY 39

Summary of Decision March 13, 2014

Justice Hill delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: IN THE MATTER OF THE WORKER’S COMPENSATION CLAIM OF: RICK D. BODILY v. STATE OF WYOMING, ex rel., WYOMING WORKERS’ SAFETY & COMPENSATION DIVISION

Docket Number: S-13-0128

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: Stephenson D. Emery of Williams, Porter, Day & Neville, P.C., Casper, WY

Representing Appellee: Peter K. Michael, Wyoming Attorney General; John D. Rossetti, Deputy Attorney General; Michael J. Finn, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Jessica Y. Frint, Assistant Attorney General

Date of Decision: March 13, 2014

Facts: Rick Bodily suffered work-related injuries to his back for which he received Worker’s Compensation benefits in 1996 and 2004. In 2008 and 2011, Bodily underwent surgeries to treat a herniated disc in his low back. The Wyoming Workers’ Compensation Division (Division) denied Bodily’s application for benefits to cover the two surgeries and any other expenses after June 2005. Bodily appealed, contending that the herniated disc in his low back was a direct result of his 1996 and 2004 injuries and was therefore a second compensable injury for which he was entitled to benefits. The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) upheld the denial of benefits, and the district court affirmed. Bodily appeals, claiming that the denial of benefits was contrary to the great weight of the evidence.

Issues: Bodily states the issue on appeal as follows: Is the Office of Administrative Hearings’ decision denying benefits clearly contrary to the great weight of evidence proving a causal connection between Bodily’s 1996 and 2004 work injuries and his pain complaints after 2005 – and resulting surgeries in 2008 and 2011 – such that he suffered a second compensable injury?

Holdings/Conclusion: The OAH decision upholding the Division’s denial of benefits was supported by substantial evidence and 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 2014 WY 38

Summary of Decision March 13, 2014

Justice Hill delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: DANIEL GEORGE SWAN v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Docket Number: S-13-0050

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

Appeal from the District Court of Johnson County the Honorable William J. Edelman, Judge

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

Representing Appellee: Peter K. Michael, Wyoming Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; Jeffrey Pope, Assistant Attorney General; Darrell Jackson, Faculty Director, Prosecution Assistance Program; David Singleton, Student Director; and Daniel Harnick, Student Intern. Argument by Mr. Harnick.

Date of Decision: March 13, 2014

Facts: A jury found Daniel Swan guilty of one count of felony child abuse, and he now appeals. He claims that the district court erred by not granting his motion for judgment of acquittal, citing insufficient evidence. He also claims that his right to confrontation was violated because the district court limited questions to the victim regarding inappropriate sexual contact between the victim and his sister.

Issues: Swan presents two issues for our review: 1. The trial court’s limitation of the cross-examination of DM effectively denied the Appellant, Daniel Swan, due process by denying him his constitutional right to confront the witness against him. 2. The evidence produced at trial was insufficient to support a verdict of child abuse and it was an abuse of discretion to deny Mr. Swan’s motion under W.R.Cr.P. 29.

Holdings/Conclusion: Daniel Swan’s right to confrontation was not violated at trial. Furthermore, there was sufficient evidence such that a jury could return a guilty verdict. 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 2014 WY 37

Summary of Decision March 12, 2014

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

Case Name: POWDER RIVER BASIN RESOURCE COUNCIL, WYOMING OUTDOOR COUNCIL, EARTHWORKS, and CENTER FOR EFFECTIVE GOVERNMENT (formerly OMB WATCH), Appellants (Petitioners), v. WYOMING OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION, Appellee (Respondent), and HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC., Appellee (Intervenor).

Docket Number: S-13-0120

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

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

Representing Appellants: Timothy J. Preso and Laura D. Beaton of Earthjustice, Bozeman, Montana; Shannon Anderson, Sheridan, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Preso.

Representing Appellee Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission: Peter K. Michael, Interim Attorney General; Eric A. Easton, Senior Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Mr. Easton.

Representing Appellee Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.: Steven L. Leifer of Baker Botts L.L.P., Washington, D.C.; John A. Masterson and Alaina M. Stedillie of Lewis Roca Rothgerber, LLP, Casper, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Leifer.

Date of Decision: March 12, 2014

Facts: Appellants Powder River Basin Resource Council, Wyoming Outdoor Council, Earthworks, and Center for Effective Government appeal from a district court order affirming the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Supervisor’s denial of a public records request.

Issue: Whether the Supervisor of the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission acted arbitrarily and unlawfully in denying Appellants’ request for public records documenting the identities of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing operations in the state.

Holdings/Conclusion: We hold that Appellants were required to follow the procedures set forth in the WPRA, which they did not do. The WPRA requires the district court to independently determine whether information must be disclosed or not, rather than to review a decision of the Supervisor as an administrative decision.
This appeal also raises the question of how trade secrets are defined under the WPRA, a question that can be answered as a matter of law on this record, and one we find to be appropriate to address in the interest of judicial economy. We decide that the Supervisor and the courts should apply the definition developed in federal case law under the Freedom of Information Act. We decline to determine whether individual chemical ingredients can be trade secrets because that is not solely a question of law and it cannot be decided on the record before us. We 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 quotation, 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 2014 WY 36

Summary of Decision March 12, 2014

Chief Justice Kite delivered the opinion for the Court. Reversed and remanded.

Case Name: MICHAEL LEE COOPER v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Docket Number: S-12-0215

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

Appeal from the District Court of Natrona County the Honorable W. Thomas Sullins, Judge

Representing Appellant: Office of the State Public Defender: Diane Lozano, State Public Defender; Tina N. Olson, Chief Appellate Counsel; Eric M. Alden, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel. Argument by Mr. Alden.

Representing Appellee: Peter K. Michael, Wyoming Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; Jeffrey Pope, Assistant Attorney General; Caitlin F. Young, Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Ms. Young.

Date of Decision: March 12, 2014

Facts: Mr. Cooper challenges his conviction for aggravated assault by threatening to use a drawn deadly weapon. He asserts his trial counsel was ineffective because she failed to call an expert witness; the district court improperly instructed the jury on the law of self defense; and there was insufficient evidence of a threat to support the jury’s guilty verdict.

Issues: Mr. Cooper presents the following issues on appeal: I.Was Mr. Cooper denied his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel? II. Was the jury improperly instructed on the law? III. Was the evidence sufficient to support the jury’s verdict on the crime charged? Though stated in more detail, the State presents similar issues.

Holdings/Conclusion: We conclude there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict but that Mr. Cooper did not receive effective assistance of counsel and the jury was improperly instructed on self defense. We, therefore, reverse and remand for a new trial.

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 2014 WY 35

Summary of Decision March 11, 2014

Justice Burke delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: IN THE MATTER OF THE WORKER’S COMPENSATION CLAIM OF TARA L. KOBIELUSZ: CIRCLE C RESOURCES, INC. v. TARA L. KOBIELUSZ, and STATE OF WYOMING, ex rel., WYOMING WORKERS’ SAFETY AND COMPENSATION DIVISION

Docket Number: S-13-0085

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: Keith R. Nachbar, Keith R. Nachbar, P.C., Casper, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee, Tara L. Kobielusz: P. Craig Silva, Williams, Porter, Day and Neville, P.C., Casper, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee, Wyoming Workers’ Safety and Compensation Division: No appearance.

Date of Decision: March 11, 2014

Facts: Appellant, Circle C Resources, Inc. (“Circle C”), challenges a decision from the Office of Administrative Hearings awarding worker’s compensation benefits to Appellee, Tara Kobielusz. Circle C contends the hearing examiner erred in finding that Ms. Kobielusz was Circle C’s employee, rather than an independent contractor.

Issues: Was the hearing examiner’s determination that Ms. Kobielusz was not an independent contractor as defined by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-102 (a)(xxiii) supported by substantial evidence?

Holdings/Conclusion: Ultimately, because the evidence supports the hearing examiner’s findings that none of the elements of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-102(a)(xxiii) were satisfied in this case, we find no prejudice as a result of the hearing examiner’s analysis. 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 2014 WY 34

Summary of Decision March 10, 2014

Justice Burke delivered the opinion of the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: JOSEPH DAX v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Docket Number: S-13-0222

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

Appeal from the District Court of Natrona County, the Honorable Daniel L. Forgey, Judge

Representing Appellant: Pro se.

Representing Appellee: Peter K. Michael, Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; Jeffrey S. Pope, Assistant Attorney General.

Date of Decision: March 10, 2014

Facts: Appellant, Joseph Dax, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence.

Issue: The dispositive issue in this case is whether Mr. Dax’s motion to correct an illegal sentence is barred by res judicata.

Holdings/Conclusion: We agree with the district court that this motion is barred by res judicata, and 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 quotation, 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 2014 WY 33

Summary of Decision March 5, 2014

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

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

Docket Number: S-13-0115

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

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

Representing Appellant: Donna D. Domonkos, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: Peter K. Michael, Wyoming Attorney General; John D. Rossetti, Deputy Attorney General; Michael J. Finn, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Peter Howard, Legal Intern.

Date of Decision: March 5, 2014

Facts: The State of Wyoming ex rel. Wyoming Workers’ Safety and Compensation Division (the Division) denied Bennie Johnson’s requests for preauthorization of bilateral total knee replacements and payment of other medical bills associated with his knees on the grounds the current condition of his knees was not related to a 1992 work injury. The Medical Commission held a contested case hearing and upheld the Division’s decision. During the hearing it admitted into evidence, over Mr. Johnson’s objection, three exhibits.

Issues: Mr. Johnson presents the following issues for this Court’s consideration: ISSUE I. Whether the Commission acted arbitrarily, capriciously or otherwise not in accordance with the law when it admitted into evidence unreliable and irrelevant evidence over objection. ISSUE II. Whether the [Medical Commission’s] decision is supported by substantial evidence. The Division presents the same issues, although they are phrased differently.

Holdings/Conclusion: We conclude the Medical Commission did not commit prejudicial error by admitting the exhibits and substantial evidence supports its decision. We, therefore, 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 2014 WY 32

Summary of Decision March 4, 2014

Justice Golden (Ret.) delivered the opinion of the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: THE COURTENAY C. AND LUCY PATTEN DAVIS FOUNDATION AND AMY DAVIS, Individually v. COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY RESEARCH FOUNDATION, UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING FOUNDATION AND C.C. DAVIS AND CO., LLC, A Wyoming Limited Liability Company, and GREGORY A. PHILLIPS, WYOMING ATTORNEY GENERAL, in his official capacity.

Docket Number: S-13-0121

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 Appellants: Steve Miller of Steve A. Miller, P.C., Denver, Colorado; Gay Woodhouse and Tara B. Nethercott of Woodhouse Roden Nethercott, LLC, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Miller.

Representing Appellees Colorado State University Research Foundation, University of Wyoming Foundation, and C.C. Davis And Co., LLC, a Wyoming Limited Liability Company: Michael J. Sullivan and Alaina M. Stedillie of Lewis Roca Rothgerber, LLP, Casper, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Sullivan.

Representing Appellee Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General, In His Official Capacity: No Appearance.

Date of Decision: March 4, 2014

Facts: In 1997, the Courtenay C. Davis Foundation and Amy Davis (collectively “the Davis Interests”) entered into an agreement with the Colorado State University Research Foundation and the University of Wyoming Foundation (“the University Foundations”). Through that agreement, the Davis Interests gifted land and other interests to the University Foundations, subject to the terms of the agreement. In 2011, the University Foundations decided to sell the gifted property. The Davis Interests filed an action in district court seeking to enjoin the sale of the gifted property, and the district court dismissed the action after finding that the Davis Interests lacked standing to bring the action.

Issues: The Davis Interests state the issues on appeal as: 1) Did the district court err in finding [the Davis Interests] lacked standing? 2) [Do the Davis Interests] have standing as a management committee member?
The University Foundations phrase the issues on appeal as: 1) Was the transaction between the Davis Interests (Appellants) and the University Foundations (Appellees) a gift, or, as claimed by the Appellants, did it create an implied trust? 2) In either event, do the Appellants have standing? 3) Is the issue raised by Appellants concerning the Davis Interests’ entitlement to appoint a member to the five member Ranch Management committee and Amy Davis' role as an unpaid consultant a new argument that has been waived? 4) If it is not a new issue, do the Davis Interests’ entitlement to appoint a member to the five member Ranch Management committee or Amy Davis’ role as an unpaid consultant support Appellants’ standing argument?

Holdings/Conclusion: The district court correctly concluded that the donation from the Davis Interests to the University Foundations was a gift, that the MOA did not create an implied trust, and that only the attorney general has standing to enforce the terms of a charitable gift. We thus affirm the court’s dismissal of the complaint and amended complaint for lack of standing.

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 quotation, 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.]