E. James Burke

In Cubba v. State, Gordon Cubba appealed the district court's denial of his motion to correct a clerical error in his Judgment and Sentence, arguing that the written document incorrectly stated his sentences for felony property destruction and marijuana possession should run consecutively rather than concurrently based on the court's oral pronouncement at sentencing. The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the motion. The court reasoned that the record showed ambiguity in the oral sentencing, with defense counsel initially describing the sentences as consecutive per the plea agreement and the court initially concurring, while a later clarification exchange suggested concurrent sentences; thus, Cubba failed to prove the oral sentence unambiguously imposed concurrent terms that conflicted with the written judgment.

criminal lawprocedure

Steven and Joyce Krenning sued the Heart Mountain Irrigation District and its employee James Flowers for personal injuries Mr. Krenning sustained during a physical altercation in which Flowers struck him with a shovel. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding them immune under the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act. On appeal, the Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Irrigation District qualifies as a governmental entity and public corporation entitled to immunity because it provides public benefits through water delivery, rather than operating as a public utility for which immunity is waived. The court also rejected the claim that extending immunity violated equal protection guarantees under the Wyoming Constitution, finding a rational basis for treating irrigation districts like other governmental entities.

torts & liabilitycivil rights

In this case, appellants Susan Kruckenberg and Linda Leif sued Ding Masters, Inc., an automotive dent repair company, seeking damages for injuries from a car accident caused by Isaac Gantz, whom they alleged was Ding Masters' employee at the time, making the company vicariously liable. Ding Masters moved for summary judgment, supported by affidavits and depositions showing Gantz was an independent contractor, and the district court granted the motion without a hearing after appellants filed no opposing evidence but instead a motion to continue and strike affidavits. Appellants appealed, raising issues of due process, procedural errors under Wyoming rules, and whether the movant's materials established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly exercised its discretion under W.R.C.P. 56(e) to rule without oral argument, that appellants' filings did not constitute a timely response creating fact issues, and that no genuine issues of material fact remained.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved Shane Sanderson's appeal of his convictions for one count of indecent liberties with a child and two counts of felony child abuse, based on incidents in which he applied K-Y Jelly to his fourteen-year-old daughter AS and exposed both AS and her twelve-year-old sister TS to automotive starting fluid fumes. The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the convictions after reviewing challenges to the admission of character evidence, the constitutionality of the indecent liberties statute as applied, alleged prosecutorial misconduct in closing arguments, and the sufficiency of evidence for physical injury under the child abuse statute. The court held that any evidentiary issues did not warrant reversal, the statute was not unconstitutional on the facts presented, no misconduct deprived Sanderson of a fair trial, and the testimony and other evidence supported the jury's finding that the starting fluid exposure caused impairment of a bodily organ. The court further reasoned that the child abuse statute encompasses temporary harms such as impairment and does not require permanent injury.

criminal law

The case involved Ms. Talley's appeal of her convictions for felony murder, attempted aggravated robbery, and conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery arising from a 2004 incident in which she and accomplices robbed and killed a drug dealer in Wyoming during a road trip. She argued that prosecutorial misconduct, including improper cross-examination questioning her about whether other witnesses were lying and a closing argument reference to an accomplice's inability to testify, denied her a fair trial. The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that any misconduct did not constitute plain error because it was not prejudicial when viewed in the context of the full record and trial instructions. The court reasoned that the questioning was limited and the closing remark was fleeting, not emphasized, and consistent with the defense theory that the absent accomplice was the principal actor.

criminal lawprocedure

In Manes v. State, the defendant appealed the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, claiming he was entitled to additional presentence incarceration credit against his explosives conviction after the sentence was made concurrent with his drug sentences. The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order, holding that the 147 days of credit already awarded in the explosives case were proper. The court reasoned that the defendant had only been confined for a total of 152 days before beginning his drug sentences, the five uncredited days were solely attributable to the drug case before his explosives arrest, and he could not receive duplicate credit for the overlapping 64 days already applied to both sentences. The decision was limited to the explosives case because no appeal was filed in the drug case.

criminal lawprocedure

In Morrison v. Clay, trustees of the Newell B. Sargent 1990 Living Trust appealed a district court order confirming an arbitration award that determined the value of company stock held by the trust, which the Clays sought to purchase under a 1985 Stock Purchase Agreement following Sargent's death. The parties had entered a settlement agreement providing for binding arbitration by three arbitrators and expressly waiving challenges to the arbitrator selection process, the arbitrators' identities, and the enforceability of any award. The district court confirmed the award on its merits and found the parties had waived rights to challenge the arbitration process. On appeal, the Wyoming Supreme Court held that the Trust's failure to challenge the waiver rulings made the substantive challenges to the award moot, and it affirmed the award of attorneys' fees to the Clays after finding no abuse of discretion in the district court's analysis of reasonableness and allocation under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-14-126(b).

business & regulatoryprocedure