P. Craig Silva, Williams, Porter, Day & Neville P.C.
Frisco S. Saunders, Timothy M. Dwyer, and Byron Amos v. Skip Hornecker
S-14-0171, S-14-0172, S-14-0173
March 5, 2015
All of the named Defendants/Appellants were held in the Fremont County Detention Center. Each of them appeared in front of the circuit court judge on bond and a cash-only bond was imposed. None of the Defendants/Appellants were able to post the cash bond and remained in jail until sentencing. Tese Defendants/Appellants appealed arguing cash-only bonds violated the Wyoming Constitution or the rules of Criminal Procedure. The bonds and charges in the three cases varied, but the range of bond was from $500.00 to $100,000.
The cases came directly to the Wyoming Supreme Court on a writ of habeas corpus. The Wyoming Supreme Court looked to other states for guidance fnding that Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Missouri, and New Mexico have found that cash-only bail did not violate those states’ constitutions; however, Louisiana, Minnesota, Ohio, Tennessee, and Vermont had ruled that cash-only bail did violate their states’ constitutions. The Wyoming Supreme Court ultimately held that in Wyoming, bail is designed to ensure the defendant appear at trial and it is within the discretion of the trial court to require cash-only bail.
Curtis J. Hamilton v. State of Wyoming
S-14-0146
March 9, 2015
This is a case of first impression. In this case, Hamilton was charged with numerous offenses, one of which was conspiracy to deliver methamphetamine. As part of his plea agreement he was re-quired to cooperate with authorities, including providing testimony. There was also a provision in the plea agreement that if Hamilton did not cooperate under W.R.Cr.P. 35(a), the State could move the court to “modify” his sentence and increase his sentence as a penalty for his refusal to cooperate. W.R.Cr.P. 35(a) provides: “Correction.—The court may correct an illegal sentence at any time. Additionally the court may correct, reduce, or modify a sentence within the time and in the manner provided herein for reduction of sentence.” Hamilton did not comply with the plea agreement. His non-compliance caused the State to move for an increase in his sentence. The district court judge granted the motion and Hamilton appealed. The Wyoming Supreme Court reversed.
During the briefing and in the opinion, no one was able to find a case similar to this case. Nevertheless, the Wyoming Supreme Court ruled that enhancement of the sentence was not proper use of W.R.Cr.P. 35(a). The Court indicated that increasing a previous legally imposed sentence is contrary generally to the principals of double jeopardy. The Court did give some guidance to the State on a possible remedy; namely, if the Defendant is in breach of the plea agreement, those remaining charges that were dismissed as part of the plea agreement could be refiled and prosecuted.
Steven A. Johnson and Karen Johnson v. Dale C. and Helen W. Johnson Family Revocable Trust et al.
S-14-0182
March 24, 2015
Plaintiff Steven Johnson fell of a haystack while helping his 82-year-old father feed cattle on property owned by the trust. The complaint was framed in negligence. The trust moved for summary judgment arguing on the basis of no duty and if there was a duty, it was not breached. Summary judgment was granted and Steven and Karen Johnson appealed. Factually, Mr. Johnson fell of a haystack injuring his back. The testimony from Mr. Johnson was the method used to load and feed, whereby he was injured, is the same method used on the family farm “forever.” There was no testimony by expert or otherwise that a better or safer method should have been used. Based on those facts, the Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment holding even if the Court were to assume a duty in this context, there was no evidence of a breach.
Mary L. Wise v. Steven F. Ludlow
S-14-0147,...
