Jason Todd Hibsman v. State, 2015 WY 122

Decedent died leaving an estate (two houses, personal property); Jason Hibsman was appointed personal representative in Dec 2008.
Hibsman failed to file required initial inventory/appraisal; he sold estate houses in 2009 and, while acting as PR, made substantial withdrawals/checks to himself without court approval.
Hibsman filed a final accounting in Oct 2010 claiming large expenditures for labor, personal travel, and out-of-pocket reimbursements; a sibling objected and the probate court removed him, froze the account, and ordered documentation.
Successor PR Robert Mullen found unexplained discrepancies, reported them to police, and the State charged Hibsman with felony larceny by bailee.
The State sought to introduce pretrial letters from Hibsman’s former attorney (Zwickl) advising that court approval was required; defense asserted attorney‑client privilege but the court admitted the letters after finding waiver/opening the door.
After a three‑day jury trial Hibsman was convicted; sentenced to suspended prison term, probation, and ordered to pay restitution of $127,208.10. Court affirmed conviction but remanded to correct restitution math.

Issue	Hibsman’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
1. Ineffective assistance of counsel for eliciting/admitting Zwickl letters	Counsel erred during opening and cross‑examination, opening the door to privileged letters and causing admission of devastating evidence	Privilege had been waived earlier (Hibsman’s letter to successor PR); even if not, admission didn’t prejudice outcome	No ineffective assistance — petitioner failed to show prejudice given overwhelming evidence of theft
2. Restitution amount	Restitution should account for legitimate expenses/labor and accurate accounting	Prosecutor’s computation supported restitution; any math error was insubstantial	Restitution order vacated in part: remanded to correct arithmetic to $118,008.10; trial court not required to credit additional claimed expenses absent evidence

Ortega-Araiza v. State, 331 P.3d 1189 (Wyo. 2014) (standard of review for mixed questions of law and fact)
Rodriguez v. State, 245 P.3d 818 (Wyo. 2010) (Strickland framework applied)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance: performance and prejudice)
Sen v. State, 301 P.3d 106 (Wyo. 2013) (courts may dispose of ineffectiveness claims on prejudice ground)
Pendleton v. State, 180 P.3d 212 (Wyo. 2008) (ineffective assistance precedent)
Galbreath v. State, 346 P.3d 16 (Wyo. 2015) (reasonable probability standard for prejudice)
Morris v. State, 210 P.3d 1101 (Wyo. 2009) (abuse of discretion standard and restitution must be reasonably supported by evidence)