Gunsch v. State, 444 P.3d 1278

In 1990 Gunsch was convicted of incest as an adult and required to register as a sex offender; he later had two convictions (2008) for failing to register but thereafter complied for 10+ years with no further felonies or misdemeanors.
In June 2018 Gunsch petitioned under Wyo. Stat. § 7-19-304(a)(i) to terminate his lifetime registration, asserting he met the statute’s 10‑year registration/clean‑record criteria.
The State initially conceded Gunsch appeared to meet statutory requirements but later filed a W.R.C.P. Rule 60(b) motion (within the appeal period) arguing the court’s order was mistaken because Gunsch was convicted as an adult, not adjudicated a delinquent.
The district court vacated its prior order under Rule 60(b), concluding it lacked subject‑matter jurisdiction and that Gunsch was statutorily ineligible; Gunsch appealed.
The Wyoming Supreme Court held the district court was wrong to conclude it lacked jurisdiction (so the judgment was not void), but affirmed the vacatur as a proper exercise of discretion under W.R.C.P. Rule 60(b)(1) because the original order was based on a clear statutory ineligibility.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion in granting the State's Rule 60(b) motion	Gunsch: Rule 60(b) is not a substitute for appeal; the error was judicial/statutory ambiguity and should not be undone by Rule 60(b)	State: The district court erred in granting relief because the original order was validly subject to correction under Rule 60(b) due to a clear statutory ineligibility; brought promptly	Court: No abuse of discretion — Rule 60(b)(1) properly used to correct clear legal error; vacatur affirmed
Whether the judgment was void for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction under Rule 60(b)(4)	Gunsch: (implicit) original order valid; court had jurisdiction to hear WSORA petitions	State: District court lacked jurisdiction, so order void	Court: Judgment was not void; district courts have jurisdiction over WSORA petitions. Rule 60(b)(4) did not apply, but Rule 60(b)(1) did

State ex rel. TRL by Avery v. RLP, 772 P.2d 1054 (Wyo. 1989) (distinguishing Rule 60(b)(4) review and scope of discretion)
Essex Holding, LLC v. Basic Properties, Inc., 427 P.3d 708 (Wyo. 2018) (Rule 60(b) limitations and appellate timing)
Vaughn v. State, 391 P.3d 1086 (Wyo. 2017) (construction of "adjudicated as a delinquent" under WSORA)
Mendez v. Republic Bank, 725 F.3d 651 (7th Cir. 2013) (Rule 60(b)(1) may correct clear district‑court errors before appeal is briefed)
Powder River Basin Res. Council v. Wyo. Dep't of Envtl. Quality, 226 P.3d 809 (Wyo. 2010) (affirm on alternate grounds and judicial economy)