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 Hitz pled guilty to felony escape from official detention, his probation was revoked, and he was sentenced on both the larceny and escape convictions.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 2013 WY 2

Summary of Decision January 9, 2013


Justice Hill delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed in part. Reversed and remanded in part.

Case Name: IN THE INTEREST OF NC and AM, Minor Children, SC and FC, III v. STATE OF WYOMING, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES

Docket Number: S-12-0139

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

Appeal from the District Court of Park County, Honorable Steven R. Cranfill, Judge.

Representing Appellants: Timothy A. Eagler of Hallman, Eagler & Hunt, P.C., Greybull, WY and Jessica Loeper, Powell, WY.

Representing Appellee: Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; Robin Sessions Cooley, Deputy Attorney General; Jill E. Kucera, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Jared Crecelius, Senior Assistant Attorney General.

Guardian ad Litem: Dan S. Wilde, Guardian ad Litem Program, Cheyenne, WY.

Date of Decision: January 9, 2013

Facts: This appeal arose from the district court’s exercise of juvenile jurisdiction over neglect petitions filed on two Texas children whose maternal grandmother brought them to Wyoming after the children had been abused in Texas by their mother’s boyfriend. The district court adjudicated the children as neglected, and the children’s mother and her boyfriend appealed, contending that the district court did not have the subject matter jurisdiction.

Issues: The children’s mother and her boyfriend state the issue on appeal as follows:

The issue before the Court is whether the juvenile court was correct in determining that it possessed the requisite subject matter jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter in controversy.

Holdings: The neglect petitions filed with the district court in this case presented the court with an interstate child custody dispute, and the district court thus erred in exercising jurisdiction pursuant to Wyoming’s Child Protection Act. Because the district court had emergency jurisdiction under the UCCJEA to respond to the immediate threat to NC and AM, the Court affirmed the district court’s findings that the children were abused and that Mother had not protected the children from that abuse. The Court likewise affirmed the district court’s entry of protective custody orders based on those findings. The Court vacated the remainder of the court’s orders, including its formal adjudications of abuse and neglect, and its orders of disposition. The Court thus affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for proceedings consistent with the direction herein.

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 2012 WY 51

Summary of Decision April 10, 2012


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

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

Case Name: Operation Save America v. The City of Jackson, a Wyoming Municipal Corporation

Docket Number: S-11-0149

URL: http://wyomcases.courts.state.wy.us/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=465333

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

Representing Appellant (Plaintiff/Defendant): Jack D. Edwards of Edwards Law Office, P.C., Etna, Wyoming

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff/Defendant): Audrey P. Cohen-Davis of The City of Jackson, Jackson, Wyoming

Date of Decision: April 10, 2012

Facts: The Town of Jackson applied to the district court for an ex parte temporary restraining order (TRO) against Operation Save America (OSA), an anti-abortion protest group. The Town sought to restrict OSA’s demonstration activities in and around the Jackson Town Square during the Boy Scouts’ 2011 annual Elk Fest. The district court granted the ex parte TRO, which enjoined OSA “from assembling on the Jackson Town Square without a permit or holding posters/signs or materials of any graphic nature (e.g., aborted fetus pictures) on the Town Square or within a two (2) block radius thereof . . . during the Boy Scouts of America Expo and Elk Antler Auction between 5:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturday, May 21, 2011.”

Issues: Both parties presented numerous procedural and substantive issues for review. Appellant, OSA, framed the issues as follows: The district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to issue an ex parte temporary protection order. The district court did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendants. The restrictions outlined in the Order Granting Temporary Restraining Order are in violation of Art. I, § 21 of the Wyoming Constitution. The restrictions outlined in the Order Granting Temporary Restraining Order are in violation of the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Appellee, the Town of Jackson, presented the issues as follows: Whether there is a direct appeal from the ex parte Order Granting Temporary Restraining Order initially issued by the District Court. Whether an appeal from this validly issued Order Granting Temporary Restraining Order is moot because it expired on its own terms and no motion to vacate or set aside, motion to extend terms of Order Granting Temporary Restraining Order or a preliminary injunction issued. Whether the District Court had subject matter jurisdiction to issue the ex parte Temporary Restraining Order pursuant to W.R.C.P. 65 and W.S. § 15-1-103(a) (xviii). Whether the District Court had personal jurisdiction over the Defendant, Operation Save America. Whether the restrictions outlined in the Order Granting Temporary Restraining Order were in violation of Art. I, § 21 of the Wyoming Constitution. Whether the restrictions outlined in the Order Granting Temporary Restraining Order were in violation of the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

Holdings: The Court found that the ex parte TRO was issued in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Rule 65 of the Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure and reversed.

Justice Golden delivered the opinion for the court.

Summary 2011 WY 101

Summary of Decision June 29, 2011

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

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

Case Name: Kelly David Robinson v. State of Wyoming

Citation:  2011 WY 101

Docket Number: S-10-0234

URL: http://wyomcases.courts.state.wy.us/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=463589

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

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Diane Lozano, State Public Defender; Tina N. Olson, Appellate Counsel; and Eric M. Alden, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel.  Argument by Mr. Alden.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Leda M. Pojman, Senior Assistant Attorney General.  Argument by Ms. Pojman.

Date of Decision: June 29, 2011

Facts: Appellant was convicted of three misdemeanors and one felony.  All of these crimes arose in a domestic violence context.  Appellant challenged one of those misdemeanor convictions, a violation of a protection order charged under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-4-404.  The gravamen of the crime was that he mailed a letter from his jail cell in Oregon (where he was being held on a warrant for his other Wyoming crimes) to the victim who had obtained the protection order.  The posting and the eventual receipt of that letter by the victim was the basis for the violation of the protection order issued by the circuit court of Crook County.  Among other things, Appellant claimed that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for the crime charged. 

Issues: Whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to prosecute a violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-3-510(c) under § 6-4-404.  Whether venue was proper where Appellant’s act occurred outside the county of prosecution.  Whether there was sufficient evidence presented to prove an act of violation of the protection order within Crook County. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the testimony of the “domestic violence” expert.

Holdings: If all had gone as it should, Appellant would have been charged under § 7-3-510(c).  However, given that the protection order was actually issued under Title 6, Appellant could have been prosecuted under § 6-2-506(d).  However, there appeared to be no basis to have charged and convicted Appellant under § 6-4-404(b), and there was no evidence in the record on appeal that relates to such a crime.  Because of this error, the Court was compelled to reverse that conviction.  Although it had the superficial appearance of being a harmless error as contemplated by W.R.A.P. 9.04 (in that all three of the punishment provisions are virtually identical), the Court concluded that the lack of evidence to support the conviction, as charged, mandated reversal.  Because of this disposition, the Court did not need to address the other issues raised.  The judgment of the district court was reversed as to the conviction entered pursuant to § 6-4-404, and the remainder of the judgment was affirmed.  The sentence imposed for the § 6-4-404 conviction was vacated, and the matter was remanded to the district court for adjustment of the sentence accordingly.

Although the decision was based upon grounds somewhat different from those raised in the briefs, the Court reversed that conviction and remanded the matter to the district court with directions that the conviction at issue be vacated and that Appellant be resentenced accordingly.

Justice Hill delivered the opinion for the court.