Law Library Letter

Summary 2012 WY 9

2012-01-20T10:56:00.000-07:00

Summary of Decision January 20, 2012

[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: Schaeffer v. State of Wyo.

Citation: 2012 WY 9

Docket Number: S-11-0060

URL: http://wyomcases.courts.state.wy.us/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=465035

Appeal from the District Court of Sheridan County, The Honorable John G. Fenn, Judge

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Diane M. Lozano, State Public Defender; Tina N. Olson, Appellate Counsel. Argument by Ms. Olson.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Paul S. Rehurek, Senior Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Mr. Rehurek.

Date of Decision: January 20, 2012

Facts: The appellant was convicted of one count of aggravated assault and battery after he waved around a flare gun during an altercation at a bar.

Issues: 1.)Whether the district court abused its discretion when it did not appoint substitute counsel; 2) Whether the district court denied the appellant his right to self-representation; 3) Whether the appellant was physically restrained excessively during the trial; 4) Whether plain error occurred when the trial court did not instruct the jury to disregard the fact that the appellant was physically restrained; 5) Whether the district court erred when it did not order a competency hearing during trial; 6) Whether the district court abused its discretion when it denied the appellant’s motion for new trial as untimely; 7) Whether the district court engaged in judicial bias; 8) Whether there was sufficient evidence presented that the appellant’s flare gun was a deadly weapon; and 9) Whether plain error occurred when the State referred to allegedly incorrect and improper information at the sentencing hearing.

Holdings: The trial court did not err when it did not allow the appellant to dismiss his attorney on the second day of trial. The record showed that the appellant did not demonstrate that his attorney was incompetent or suffered from a conflict of interest which would justify a substitution of counsel.

Additionally, the trial court did not violate the appellant’s right to self-representation, as the appellant never made an unequivocal request to represent himself. The record as a whole showed that the appellant did not want to proceed pro se, and there were no facts to conclude that the appellant made “an intentional relinquishment or abandonment” of his right to counsel.

The trial court did not require excessive physical restraints, and not instructing the jury regarding the shackles did not constitute plain error. The appellant was charged with aggravated assault and battery and had engaged in disruptive and potentially violent behavior directed towards the court. The Court found the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the appellant required hand and feet shackles to ensure the safety of everyone in the courtroom. Furthermore, based upon the record, the Court found the appellant was not uninformed of the dangers of letting the jury see his shackles. Instead, the record suggested he intentionally chose to expose them nonetheless. The Court observed that while it may have been better to give an instruction, neither Wyoming law nor federal law has ever required such. The appellant failed to demonstrate he suffered prejudice of a substantial right.

After the appellant had initially been deemed competent to proceed, the circumstances at trial were not such that would have required an additional competency evaluation. The Court found that the trial court’s decision not to revisit the competency issue was supported by substantial evidence in the record.

The trial court did not have the authority to allow the appellant to file a motion for new trial outside the time confines of W.R.Cr.P. 33 and, therefore, it did not abuse its discretion when it denied the motion as untimely.

There was sufficient evidence presented at trial that a flare gun is a deadly weapon as used in the crime of aggravated assault and battery. The jury was presented with substantial evidence that the appellant waved and pointed a flare gun in an extremely hostile manner, and that the flare gun was capable of causing serious bodily injury or death.

Finally, the trial court did not exhibit judicial bias against the appellant, and the State did not provide the trial court with inappropriate or incorrect information at the sentencing hearing.

The Court Affirmed.

J. Voigt delivered the opinion for the court.

Summary 2012 WY 8

2012-01-20T10:54:00.002-07:00

Summary of Decision January 20, 2012

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

Case Name: Thorkildsen v. Belden

Citation: 2012 WY 8

Docket Number: S-11-0146

URL: http://wyomcases.courts.state.wy.us/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=465034

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

Representing Appellant (Defendant): David G. Lewis, Attorney at Law, Jackson, Wyoming

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Richard J. Mulligan, Mulligan Law Office, Jackson, Wyoming; Heather Nobel, Jackson, Wyoming

Date of Decision: January 20, 2012

Facts: In the fourth appeal of this matter, the Court took the unusual step of making a factual determination that the attorney fees Appellant requested were reasonable and directed the district court to enter an order awarding attorney fees in the amount of $77,475.00. On remand, Appellant modified his attorney fee motion to also request a seven-percent prejudgment interest on the fee award. The district court entered an order awarding the directed amount in attorney fees and denying the requested prejudgment interest. In this fifth appeal, Appellant challenged the district court’s entry of the order directed by this Court, claiming he is entitled to prejudgment interest on the fee award.

Issues: Whether the District Court erroneously decided that the Appellant was not entitled to have prejudgment interest assessed on the attorney fees awarded him by the Wyoming Supreme Court in its decision Thorkildsen v. Belden, et al., 2011 WY 26, ¶ 27, 247 P.3d 60, 67 (Wyo. 2011); and 2) Whether the District Court correctly interpreted the decision in Thorkildsen v. Belden, et al., 2011 WY 26, ¶ 27, 247 P.3d 60, 67 (Wyo. 2011) to foreclose the defendant from seeking an award of prejudgment interest in any event.

Holdings: The Court affirmed the district court’s Order Awarding Attorney’s Fees.

The court found the award of Appellant’s attorney fees was not a liquidated claim because this argument failed to consider the analysis and discretion a court brings to an award of attorney fees. Appellant was therefore not entitled to prejudgment interest on the award. The Court denied Appellee’s request for sanctions.

J. Golden delivered the opinion for the court.

Summary 2012 WY 7

2012-01-18T10:33:00.000-07:00

Summary of Decision January 18, 2012

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

Case Name: Schlinger v. McGhee

Citation: 2012 WY 7

Docket Number: S-10-0185

URL: http://wyomcases.courts.state.wy.us/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=465027

Appeal from the District Court of Teton County, The Honorable Nancy J. Guthrie, Judge

Representing Appellants (Defendants): Scott P. Klosterman and Patrick J. Murphy of Williams, Porter, Day & Neville, P.C., Casper, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Klosterman.

Representing Appellees (Plaintiffs): J. Denny Moffett of Moffett & Associates, PC, Jackson, Wyoming; and Heather Noble, Jackson, Wyoming. Argument by Ms. Noble.

Date of Decision: January 18, 2012

Facts: Appellant, acting as President of his construction company, entered into an oral agreement to lease his business and all associated equipment and land to the appellees. Appellees formed an LLC as the entity to lease and operate the business. After approximately eight months, Appellant determined the appellees were not properly managing the business and terminated the oral lease agreement. The parties dispute the financial implications of the termination. After a bench trial, the district court determined Appellants owed Appellees and their LLC $206,875.70.

Issues: I) Whether the district court erred when it found, based on incomplete and unreliable bookkeeping spreadsheets, that Appellants owed Appellees $206,875.70; A) Whether the district court erred in its judicial accounting when it failed to credit Appellants with $312,319.12 of business expenses Appellants paid for Appellees in March, April and May 2004 B) Whether the district court further erred when it accepted the bookkeeper’s unreliable and incomplete “tie out ending balance” number of $206,875.70 as its judicial accounting award; II) Whether the district court erred when it awarded pre-judgment interest to Appellees where the underlying debt was unliquidated and Appellees provided no notice of that required sum to Appellants; III) Whether the district court abused its discretion when it denied Appellants’ unjust enrichment claims; A) Whether the district court incorrectly rejected Appellants’ $10,800 claim for reimbursement for Appellant’s individual time and help in running the business from March – August, 2004; B) Whether the district court incorrectly rejected Appellees’ $48,000 claim for reimbursement for bonding two projects for Appellants; C) Whether the district court erred when it rejected Appellees’ $26,475 claim for reimbursement of one-half of the salary and bonus paid to an employee; and lastly, IV) Whether the district court’s judgment for $206,875.70 for Appellees should be reversed, and judgment entered for Appellants in the amount of $190,718.42.

Holdings: The Court affirmed in part and reversed in part.

As to issues I and II, the Court concluded the district court made a mistake in awarding damages based on speculative and inaccurate accounting that lacked reasonable certainty. The testimony of both employed accountants indicated likely gaps in the accounting that led to the ending balance. The judgment in favor of the appellees on this claim was reversed, rendering issue II moot.

As to the unjust enrichment claims (issues III), the Court found that Appellants had the burden of presenting sufficient credible evidence to support a judicial determination in their favor, and they did not do so. No evidence was presented as to the salaried employee’s involvement with any particular project, and there was also no evidence as to the profit margin on any particular project. The judgment on this claim was affirmed.

As to issue IV, The Court found Appellants conclusion was based on the arguments they made under Issues I and III regarding their contract and unjust enrichment claims. Given the Court rejected those arguments, the Court did not choose to further address this issue.

In conclusion, the Court reversed the district court’s judgment on the appellees’ breach of contract claim and rejected Appellants’ argument that they should be awarded breach of contract damages. The district court judgment on the unjust enrichment claims was affirmed.

J. Golden delivered the opinion for the court.