Court Summaries
| Citation | Vol. 37 No. 6 Pg. 56 |
| Pages | 56 |
| Publication year | 2014 |
P. Craig Silva Williams, Porter, Day & Neville P.C.
Wyatt L. Bear Cloud v. State of Wyoming
2014 WY 113 S-13-0216
September 10, 2014
At the age of 16, Wyatt Bear Cloud participated in several crimes that resulted in the murder of Robert Ernst. Mr. Bear Cloud entered a guilty plea to charges of first-degree murder, aggravated burglary, and conspiracy to commit aggravated burglary. Te district court sentenced him to 20 to 25 years in prison for aggravated burglary; life in prison according to law for first degree murder; and 20 to 25 years for conspiracy, all to be served consecutively.
In 2012, the United States Supreme Court rendered a decision in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S.--, 132 S.Ct. 2455 (2012), holding that the Eighth Amendment forbids a sentencing scheme that mandates life in prison without parole for juvenile offenders. As a result, Mr. Bear Cloud’s case was reversed and he was re sentenced. At re sentencing, Mr. Bear Cloud was sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole for the first degree murder conviction, to run consecutively with the above-imposed sentences. Te effect of this sentencing structure is that the earliest possible opportunity for parole is when Mr. Bear Cloud is 61 years old. Te issue is whether that sentence violates the Eighth Amendment, cruel and unusual punishment, given the fact it is essentially a life without parole sentence.
Te Wyoming Supreme Court reversed determining that this sentence was the functional equivalent of life without parole and on remand Mr. Bear Cloud should be sentenced on all charges so the court could fashion a sentence that does not violate the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution; a sentence that in functional effect is a life sentence without parole.
This material is not intended to be legal advice. Individuals should discuss any questions regarding this material with an attorney. If you have a specific case you would like summarized, please contact Craig Silva at csilva@wpdn.net.
Tommy F. Doggett v. Wyoming Department of Workforce Services Unemployment Insurance Commission
2014 WY 119 S-14-0012
September 24, 2014
Tommy F. Doggett worked for Strokers, Inc., a Harley Davidson service center in Lander. Mr. Doggett worked for Strokers, Inc. for five years as a mechanic. On October 11, 2011, he was terminated and sought unemployment benefits as a result thereof. Mr. Doggett’s case went through the entire appeal process and at the time he appealed to the Wyoming Supreme Court, the decision appealed was a denial of benefits due to misconduct.
Te issue was whether or not behavior/misconduct on the part of the employee (in this case Mr. Doggett) which behavior/misconduct the employer was unaware of, could form the basis to deny unemployment benefits. Te two bases for Mr. Doggett’s termination were: (1) he chipped the motor fn on his employer’s bike, but failed to inform his employer; and (2) he installed a damaged motor cylinder in a customer’s bike and did not report it to his employer. Neither incident was known by the employer at the time of the termination.
Te Wyoming Supreme Court reversed and awarded benefits to Mr. Doggett based on the opinion that the evidence acquired following the employee’s separation from employment could not form the basis to deny the unemployment claim.
Enrique Herrera v. Robert Phillips and Gilligan’s, LLC
2014 WY 118 S-13-0243
September 23, 2014
Enrique Herrera was injured while an employee of Gilligan’s, LLC, and under the supervision of Robert Phillips. Gilligan’s, LLC sought summary judgment on the basis it was immune from suit pursuant to the Workers’ Compensation bar. Mr. Herrera, however, argued that because he was not legally authorized to work in the United States, and that Gilligan’s did not have a reasonable belief he was authorized to work in the United States, he was not an “employee” and, therefore, Gilligan’s, LLC was not immune from suit. Te district court granted summary judgment on the basis of Workers’ Compensation immunity. Te Wyoming Supreme Court reversed.
As a general rule under the Wyoming Workers’ Compensation Act...
To continue reading
Request your trial