Summary 2007 WY 85

Summary of Decision issued May 22, 2007

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note 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.]

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

Case Name: Ramos v. State, ex rel., Wyoming Workers’ Safety and Compensation Division

Citation: 2007 WY 85

Docket Number: 06-100

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

Representing Appellant (Petitioner): Hampton M. Young, Jr., Casper, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; John W. Renneisen, Deputy Attorney General; Steven R. Czoschke, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Kristi M. Radosevich, Assistant Attorney General.

Issue: Whether the hearing examiner’s decision was arbitrary and capricious and not in accordance with the law when it failed to consider whether the work-related injury combined with the preexisting periodontal disease necessitated the dental treatment for which compensation was sought.

Facts/Discussion: Ramos sustained facial bone fractures in a work-related accident in 2003. Over ten years prior to the injury, he had been informed he had periodontal disease and had been advised to have his teeth extracted and replaced with dentures. The Division denied payment of $2470 for the dental treatment. Ramos requested a hearing where the OAH upheld the Division’s denial. The district court affirmed the hearing examiner’s opinion.
Standard of Review: The standard of review of a hearing examiner’s order in a contested case is governed by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c). The order is reviewed giving no deference to the district court’s decision and the conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. The arbitrary and capricious standard governs the judicial review of the order.
Ramos challenged the findings of fact in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the hearing examiner’s decision and pointed to undisputed evidence supporting his contention that the dental work was necessitated by the injury and was not a result of long-standing preexisting periodontal disease. The Court agreed and held that the hearing examiner’s decision was arbitrary and capricious.

Holding: After the Court’s review of the entire record, the Court found that Ramos proved by a preponderance of the evidence that his work-related injury substantially combined with his preexisting periodontal disease which necessitated the dental treatment.

Reversed and remanded to the district court.

J. Golden delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/35h8yx .

Summary 2007 WY 84

Summary of Decision issued May 21, 2007

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note 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.]

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

Case Name: Gray v. Pavey

Citation: 2007 WY 84

Docket Number: 06-277

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

Representing Appellant (Respondent): Cole N. Sherard, Wheatland, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Petitioner): James A. Hardee, Douglas, Wyoming.

Issue: Whether the district court abused its discretion by awarding custody of the parties’ minor child (C.G.) to her father, John Pavey.

Facts/Discussion: Mother (Gray) appeals from an order modifying child custody.
Standard of Review: The Court reviews a district court’s order on a petition to modify custody, visitation, and child support for an abuse of discretion.
Father bore the burden of demonstrating that a material and substantial change of circumstances affecting the child’s welfare has occurred and the modification would be in the child’s best interest. The Court reviewed the record and found there was sufficient evidence presented to demonstrate a material change in circumstances and that an award of primary custody to Father was in the best interests of the child. The district court heard evidence favorable and unfavorable to both parents.

Holding: After considering all of the evidence before it, the district court determined that Father was better able to provide an environment which could meet C.G.’s emotional, developmental, and educational needs. Sufficient evidence existed in the record to support the decision. As a result, the Court could not say that the court abused its discretion in this matter.

Affirmed.

J. Burke delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/38xye8 .

Summary 2007 WY 83

Summary of Decision issued May 18, 2007

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note 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.]

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

Case Name: Potter v. State

Citation: 2007 WY 83

Docket Number: 06-59 & 06-60

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, the Honorable Nicholas G. Kalokathis, Judge

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Kenneth M. Koski, State Public Defender; Donna D. Domonkos, Appellate Counsel; and Ryan R. Roden, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel. Argument by Mr. Roden.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; Paul Rehurek, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Cathleen D. Parker, Senior Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Ms. Parker.

Issue: Whether Potter was denied his right to a speedy trial.

Facts/Discussion: Pursuant to a plea agreement, Potter conditionally pleaded guilty to one count of felonious restraint in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-202(a). After timely appealing both the judgment and sentence and the order revoking his probation, the matters were consolidated.
Standard of Review: The Court reviews speedy trial claims to ensure that the mandates of W.R.Cr.P. 48 and constitutional guarantees have been met. The constitutional question of whether a defendant has been denied a speedy trial in terms of the Sixth Amendment are examined de novo.
W.R.Cr.P. 48: The Court calculated the time between Potter’s arraignment and conditional plea. The Court determined there were only 107 days of delay out of the 337 day total. One hundred seven is below the limit set forth in the Rule. The 230 days difference could be attributed to proceedings related to Potter’s mental illness or deficiency which made those days excludable from the speedy trial clock under Rule 48.
Constitutional Claim: The Court focused on the benchmark test that applies to constitutional speedy trial claims from Barker v. Wingo. The Court considers the length of delay; the reason for the delay; the defendant’s assertion of his right; and the prejudice to the defendant. The total length of the delay of 362 days between arrest and final dissolution warranted examination of the other three factors. The reason for the delay was largely attributable to Potter when he pleaded not guilty by reason of mental illness and requested an evaluation. Potter’s demands for a speedy trial and the fact that he did not object when the court continued the trial amounted to a less than vigorous assertion of his right. The defendant has the burden of showing actual prejudice as a result of the delay. Potter claimed prejudice but when the Court considered all of the factors together, they concluded he was not denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial.

Holding: The Court considered all of the factors together and concluded Potter was not denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial, especially considering his relatively weightier contribution to the delay.

Affirmed.

J. Hill delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/34no6x .

How-to: Safely Recycle That Computer

My dad loves to call me a tree-hugger (apparently learning foreign languages earns me a liberal tag). But I know I'm not--I'm perfectly willing to use Roundup on that nasty old thistle as anyone. And I would be the first to admit to not saving soda cans *gasp*.

I do cringe, though, whenever I think of all the old computers that might be running around in landfills. I've managed to pawn my old computers off on unsuspecting family members so far, but I've been waiting for that dread day when they catch on to my schemes. Now I am happy to report that there are several options for recycling your ancient (2 years old), slower-than-molasses-in-january (takes more than 5 seconds to load google), un-cool-looking (no fancy blue or green LED lights) computer.

This article by CNET.com covers methods for erasing the data off your hard drive before you recycle the old monster. The author also explains some of the why behind the necessity to make sure the hard drive is cleaned specific ways. While I don't think anyone is really going to go to a lot of trouble to retrieve the 852 cat pictures from my computer's banged up hard drive, I wouldn't take the chance with confidential client data. So, take a look at Robert Vamosi's Security Watch: Ready to recycle that old PC? Read this first.

The next article is even better (much less techie and more choices for doing good in the world). WikiHow's How to Safely Get Rid of an Old Computer lists some great ideas for recycling besides just making the retailer of your new computer recycle the old PC/Mac. Some of them might work even in Nowhere, Wyoming. For instance, it's always fun to put something out in your front yard with a free sign. It doesn't matter what it is, it will disappear.

How to: What Not To Put On Your Firm Homepage

Have you taken that leap into the 21st century and created a web site for your practice? How long has it been since it was updated? What kinds of questions did you ask yourself during planning and design? What was your goal for the web site presence? How do you know if it's effective?

Making a web site takes more than just code. You need to consider it as one more method for advertising your serves to prospective clients; and this takes some careful consideration.

Margot Teleki wrote an article for Law.com's Legal Technology that can help guide you through some dos and don'ts as far as home page content and design. Use Your Home Page as a Marketing Tool covers some of the issues you need to consider for drawing a prospective client from a search engine to your site, as well as what kinds of information to provide for them once they reach your home page. It's a fairly short article that can get you started on the right track.

Oh, and while I'm at it--here's another article by Teleki. It pretty much covers the same topic, but details more specifically the dos rather than the don'ts.

What Does Your Web Site Say About You?

Summary 2007 WY 82

Summary of Decision issued May 15, 2007

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note 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.]

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

Case Name: Vroman v. Town & Country Credit Corp.

Citation: 2007 WY 82

Docket Number: 06-170

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, the Honorable Nicholas G. Kalokathis, Judge

Representing Appellant (Plaintiff): William D. Bagley, of Bagley, Karpan, Rose & White, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Defendant): Dale W. Cottam and Billie L.M. Addleman, of Hirst & Applegate, PC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Issues: Whether the district court erred in failing to award damages for the injury resulting from the admitted negligence and admitted breach of contract of Town & Country. Whether the district court erred in failing to award punitive damages.

Facts/Discussion: Vroman initiated the instant case seeking damages for a mortgage refinancing transaction gone awry. Town & Country admitted liability. The district court entered its Judgment and Order in favor of Town & Country because it found that Vroman was not entitled to damages.
Standard of Review: The Court reviews a district court’s findings of fact under a clearly erroneous standard.
The purpose of compensatory damages is to place the injured party in the position he or she would have been in had the wrongful conduct not occurred. The Court found that the district court’s decision in the matter did not leave Vroman in the position she would have been in if Town & Country had adequately performed its duty. Vroman incurred damages because Beneficial’s mortgage and WyHy’s mortgage were not satisfied and released during the refinancing. In light of the Town & Country’s admission of liability and the undisputed evidence relating to the additional mortgage payments, the Court concluded that the district court erred in failing to award damages to Vroman to recoup the $13,969.93 she paid.
The district court denied claims for damages for the amount of closing costs on her house and rental property and to compensate for damage to her credit rating. The breach did not cause Vroman to incur the closing costs, so the Court agreed with the district court’s decision to decline to award money with respect to those claims. Vroman failed to prove that her credit rating suffered. The Court agreed with the district court’s decision to reject the damages claimed for lost rental income because the amount of cash that would be disbursed was clearly identified on the settlement statements signed at closing. Fraud was also alleged by Vroman. It must be established by clear and convincing evidence. Vroman failed to direct the Court to any evidence in the record supporting the allegation of fraud and as a result, the Court was unable to find the district court had erred in denying the claim.

Holding: The Court affirmed the district court’s decision denying punitive damages. The district court’s failure to award compensatory damages for the amounts Vroman incurred to satisfy her second mortgages was clearly erroneous. The Court reversed the district court’s decision denying compensatory damages and remanded.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded in part.

J. Burke delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/2umf9e .

Summary 2007 WY 81

Summary of Decision issued May 14, 2007

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note 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.]

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

Case Name: Lee v. State

Citation: 2007 WY 81

Docket Number: 06-116

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

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Robert W. Lee, Pro se.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; Paul Rehurek, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Leda M. Pojman, Assistant Attorney General.

Issue: Whether the district court had jurisdiction to consider a motion entitled “Request for Clarification of Sentence” filed more than seven years after entry of conviction and sentencing where Appellant did not cite to any authority allowing the court continuing jurisdiction in the matter.

Facts/Discussion: Lee filed a Request for Clarification of Sentence with the district court on March 14, 2006. The district court entered an Order Denying Request for Clarification of Sentence on March 17, 2006.
The Court reviews subject matter jurisdiction de novo. If a trial court did not have jurisdiction to entertain an issue, the Court does not have jurisdiction to decide a subsequent appeal on that issue.
The trial court’s jurisdiction terminated with the entry of the judgment and sentence in the instant case, and the final disposition of Lee’s direct appeal. Lee’s motion did not appear in any rule or statute authorizing the district court to act on such a request more than seven years after his conviction and sentencing nor could the Court find any such rule or statute allowing it.

Holding: The Court concluded the district court was without jurisdiction to consider Lee’s “Request for Clarification of Sentence” and consequently, the Court was without jurisdiction to consider the appeal.

Dismissed.

C.J. Voigt delivered the decision.

J. Hill, Special Concurrence: The district court did have jurisdiction of Lee’s motion and the Court had jurisdiction of the appeal. W.R.Cr.P. 35 provides the district court may correct an illegal sentence at any time. W.R.Cr.P. 36 provides that clerical mistakes may be corrected by the court at any time. Lee’s motion properly invoked the district court’s jurisdiction under one or both of the rules but it failed to state any ground which would entitle Lee to relief. Therefore, the district court’s order should be affirmed.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/2xxb5a .