454 P.3d 927
Wyo.2019Background
- On July 8, 2017, Christopher Mark Nesius led law enforcement on a high‑speed pursuit from Keyhole State Park onto I‑90; his driving was erratic (crossing center and fog lines, wide swerving, speeds fluctuating well above the limit).
- During the pursuit Nesius attempted a pass and clipped the rear of a motorcycle, causing the motorcyclist to suffer serious injuries.
- Officers forcibly removed and handcuffed Nesius; a glass pipe in his truck tested positive for methamphetamine residue and his blood contained methamphetamine and amphetamine.
- A jury convicted Nesius of five counts (aggravated assault and battery; DUI causing serious bodily injury; reckless endangering; interference with an officer; fleeing/attempting to elude); one misdemeanor conviction was dismissed at trial.
- At sentencing the court orally awarded 211 days credit for time served, imposed concurrent sentences on misdemeanors, a 5–8 year term on Count I, and 12–15 years on Count II to run consecutive to Count I; the written sentence omitted felony credit and imposed 211 days on Count V (fleeing), which exceeded the statutory six‑month maximum.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for DUI causing serious bodily injury (whether Nesius was under the influence of a controlled substance to a degree rendering him incapable of driving safely) | State: Blood and pipe tested positive for methamphetamine; observed driving behavior and other testimony permitted a jury inference of impairment. | Nesius: Evidence only showed presence of drug/metabolites and general effects—no expert tied the measured level to impairment. | Affirmed: A rational jury could infer Nesius was under the influence and so impaired from the totality of evidence (blood results, residue, driving, behavior). |
| Legality of 211‑day sentence on Count V (fleeing/attempting to elude) | State: (implicitly) sentence within district court discretion. | Nesius: 211 days exceeds the statutory maximum of 6 months for the offense. | Held illegal: 211 days exceeds the six‑month statutory maximum; court orders the illegal portion stricken and mandates a six‑month sentence on Count V with credit for time served. |
| Credit for time served and conformity between oral pronouncement and written sentence | State: Oral judgment granted 211 days credit; written order must conform. | Nesius: Written sentence omitted felony credit contrary to oral pronouncement; seeks full application to concurrent and consecutive sentences. | Held partly for Nesius: He is entitled to 211 days credit applied to Count I (one of the consecutive felonies) to ensure full credit against total term; Count II need not receive credit unless the court in its discretion intended to grant it—remand to clarify and issue corrected sentencing order. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hopkins v. State, 445 P.3d 582 (Wyo. 2019) (describing sufficiency‑of‑evidence review standard)
- Downs v. State, 581 P.2d 610 (Wyo. 1978) (view evidence in light most favorable to the State on sufficiency review)
- Horn v. State, 554 P.2d 1141 (Wyo. 1976) (jury verdict standard for sufficiency review)
- Buckles v. State, 830 P.2d 702 (Wyo. 1992) (no fixed concentration presumption for controlled substances; focus is on incapacity to drive safely)
- Nowack v. State, 774 P.2d 561 (Wyo. 1989) (unsafe driving is competent evidence of impairment)
- Gould v. State, 151 P.3d 261 (Wyo. 2006) (sentences exceeding statutory maximum are illegal)
- Brown v. State, 99 P.3d 489 (Wyo. 2004) (statutory maximum is determined by the applicable statute)
- Smith v. State, 286 P.3d 429 (Wyo. 2012) (remand vs. striking illegal portion of sentence analysis)
- Crosby v. State, 247 P.3d 876 (Wyo. 2011) (same framework for dealing with illegal portions of sentence)
- Scott v. State, 278 P.3d 747 (Wyo. 2012) (credit for time served applied to concurrent sentences; limits discussed when sentences combine concurrent and consecutive terms)
- Palmer v. State, 371 P.3d 156 (Wyo. 2016) (when sentences are consecutive, allocate presentence credit to one sentence so defendant receives full credit against total term)
- Mitchell v. State, 426 P.3d 830 (Wyo. 2018) (defendant entitled to credit for presentence confinement if unable to post bond)
- Rosalez v. State, 955 P.2d 899 (Wyo. 1998) (credit for presentence confinement principles)
- Schubert v. People, 698 P.2d 788 (Colo. 1985) (explaining allocation of presentence credit for concurrent vs. consecutive sentences)