Leobigildo Uriostegui Albarran v. The State of Wyoming, 309 P.3d 817

Appellant charged with three counts after a sexually charged attack on his sister-in-law; district court allowed amendment of Count III to specify aggravated burglary; jury convicted on aggravated burglary, battery, and third-degree sexual assault; appellant challenges the amendment as improper.
Original Count III cited burglary (not the correct aggravated burglary subsection) and carried the lesser penalty; multiple amendments were made to fix typographical errors, but Count III remained unchanged until the morning of trial.
On May 4, 2012, appellant moved to dismiss Count III for failure to state aggravated burglary elements; the district court held a hearing and then permitted a third amendment to include bodily-injury and correct penalties.
On the morning of trial, the district court amended Count III to allege aggravated burglary with bodily injury and the maximum penalty; appellant understood the charge and pleaded not guilty, proceeding to trial.
The court ultimately convicted on all counts and sentenced concurrently; appellant appeals, arguing prejudicial notice and substantial rights were violated by the amendment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the district court abuse its discretion by allowing the information to be amended before trial?	UrioStegui (Wyola) argues amendment was prejudicial and altered the offense charged.	State argues amendment before trial permissible if substantial rights are not prejudiced.	No abuse of discretion; substantial rights not prejudiced.

Wilkening v. State, 120 P.3d 687 (Wy. 2005) (abuse-of-discretion standard for amendments to information; notice and prejudice considerations)
Jones v. State, 203 P.3d 1091 (Wy. 2009) (amendment timing controls; pretrial amendments when no new offense charged)
Spagner v. State, 200 P.3d 793 (Wy. 2009) (constitutional notice requirements; information must fairly inform charges)
Meek v. State, 37 P.3d 1279 (Wy. 2002) (information sufficiency evaluated from broad, enlightened view)
Estrada-Sanchez v. State, 66 P.3d 703 (Wy. 2003) (pretrial defense effectiveness when amendments occur close to trial)
Garnica v. State, 253 P.3d 489 (Wy. 2011) (amendments aligning with charged conduct; no prejudice)