Summary 2013 WY 87

Summary of Decision July 16, 2013

Justice Burke delivered the opinion for the Court. Dismissed.

Case Name: TONY SERNA v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Docket Number: S-12-0273

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

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

Representing Appellant: Pro se.

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

Date of Decision: July 16, 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary 2013 WY 58

Summary of Decision May 10, 2013


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

Case Name: DANIEL B. WALKER v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Docket Number: S-12-0195

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

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

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

Representing Appellee: Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; Meri V. Geringer, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Theodore R. Racines, Senior Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Ms. Geringer.

Date of Decision: May 10, 2013

Facts: Appellant, Daniel Walker, challenged his conviction for felony stalking, in violation of Wyo. Ann. Stat. § 6-2-506(e)(iv). He contended that the amended information did not allege facts sufficient to constitute the offense of felony stalking and did not adequately inform him of the charges against him. Appellant also claimed that the jury was not properly instructed with respect to the intent element of the crime, resulting in plain error.

Issues: Appellant presents the following issues:

1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion when it allowed the State to amend the felony information?

2. Was Mr. Walker denied his constitutional right to adequate notice of the charge he must defend against, as provided for under the federal and the Wyoming Constitutions, and the Wyoming Rules of Criminal Procedure?

3. Did plain error result when the trial court provided a confusing and misleading jury instruction which combined two of the elements of stalking and instructed the jury that both of those elements were met upon the State establishing a combination of certain actions by Mr. Walker?

The State phrases the issues in a substantially similar manner.

Holdings: The Court found no error in the district court’s decision permitting the State to amend the information and also conclude that Appellant was adequately informed of the charges. The Court agreed, however, with Appellant’s contention that the jury was not properly instructed regarding the elements of the crime. As a result, the Court reversed and remanded 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 2013 WY 50

Summary of Decision April 30, 2013

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

Case Name: KIET HOANG NGUYEN v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Docket Number: S-12-0173

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

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

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

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

Date of Decision: April 30, 2013

Facts: Kiet Hoang Nguyen challenged the judgment and sentence entered after he pleaded guilty to one count of larceny. He claimed that the factual basis provided by the State for his guilty plea did not meet the elements of larceny, specifically the “taking” requirement. Apparently recognizing the factual basis did not establish the crime of larceny, the State argued that his conviction should, nevertheless, be affirmed because Mr. Nguyen understood his conduct was criminal and he waived any challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence when he pleaded guilty.

Issues: Mr. Nguyen presents the following issue on appeal:

Did the trial court err when it accepted Mr. Nguyen’s guilty plea without obtaining a sufficient factual basis to support the offense of larceny?

The State phrases the issue differently:

Requiring a district court to accept a factual basis for a guilty plea ensures a defendant understands his conduct was criminal and is not misled into waiving substantial rights. The factual basis for Kiet Nguyen’s guilty plea showed he deposited potentially forged checks from accounts with insufficient funds and then withdrew some of the money before the bank knew. Was there a sufficient factual basis for Nguyen to understand his conduct was criminal?

Holdings: The Court concluded the district court committed plain error by entering judgment on Mr. Nguyen’s guilty plea when it was not supported by a sufficient factual basis. Consequently, the Court reversed.

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

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

Summary 2013 WY 46

Summary of Decision April 19, 2013

Justice Hill delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: TRAVIS J. KOVACH v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Docket Number: S-12-0150

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

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

Representing Appellant: Gerard R. Bosch, Law Offices of Jerry Bosch, Wilson, WY; and Tim Newcomb, Laramie, WY. Argument by Mr. Newcomb.

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

Date of Decision: April 19, 2013

Facts: Travis Kovach was a passenger in a vehicle traveling on a narrow backcountry road.  As the vehicle in which Kovach was traveling passed another oncoming vehicle, the two vehicles clipped each other.  Kovach pursued the other vehicle, and after catching up with it, he assaulted the vehicle’s seventy-three-year-old driver and sixty-seven-year-old passenger.  Kovach then forced the two men back to his hunting camp, where he again assaulted them. 

A jury found Kovach guilty of numerous charges, including false imprisonment, felonious restraint and aggravated assault and battery.  On appeal, Kovach contended the prosecutor suppressed exculpatory evidence in violation of his state and federal due process rights.  He also challenged the district court’s order requiring him to disclose witness statements and its imposition of sanctions related to that order; alleged misconduct in the prosecutor’s failure to correct false or misleading testimony; alleged the district court relied on impermissible information in sentencing; and alleged the district court erred in sua sponte issuing an amended judgment correcting the fine imposed against Kovach. 

Issues:    Kovach presents eight issues on appeal, which we consolidate and restate as follows:

1.      Did the prosecutor suppress exculpatory evidence in violation of Kovach’s federal and state due process rights?

2.      Did the district court abuse its discretion and violate Kovach’s federal and state constitutional rights when it ordered him to disclose witness statements and then limited his cross-examination of two prosecution witnesses as a sanction for failure to comply with that order? 

3.      Did the prosecutor commit plain error in violation of Kovach’s due process rights by failing to correct the testimony of two witnesses? 

 4.      Did the district court commit plain error in its sentencing of Kovach by relying on uncharged misconduct evidence and by sua sponte issuing an amended judgment correcting the fine imposed against Kovach?

Holdings: The Court found no violation of Kovach’s constitutional rights in the prosecutor’s failure to disclose information to the defense or in the district court’s discovery orders. The Court further found no prosecutorial misconduct, and no plain error in the court’s sentencing decisions and order. 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]