Philip Glenn Guilford v. State, 2015 WY 147

On July 24–25, 2013, Guilford drank beer and used marijuana, drove ~30 miles, and twice rolled his pickup; troopers observed red eyes, slurred speech, and alcohol odor.
A blood draw at 6:53 a.m. (about six hours after the first rollover) showed BAC .09% and delta-9 THC 3.43 ng/mL.
Guilford was charged with felony DWUI under two alternative theories: (1) driving under the influence of a combination of alcohol and a controlled substance making him incapable of safely driving, Wyo. Stat. § 31-5-233(b)(iii)(C); and (2) driving with BAC ≥ .08%, § 31-5-233(b)(i).
Defense sought the blood sample for independent retesting but filed the motion after the court’s deadline; the district court denied the late motion as waived.
At trial the State presented expert testimony that BAC and THC decline over time and that combined use increases impairment; Guilford presented no witnesses.
Jury convicted Guilford on both theories; he was sentenced to six to seven years (felony based on prior convictions) and appealed claiming vagueness and ineffective assistance of counsel.

Issue	Guilford's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether § 31-5-233(b)(iii)(C) is unconstitutionally vague as applied	Statute is vague such that his use of alcohol+THC did not provide fair notice	Statute reasonably warns ordinary person that combined intoxication that renders one incapable of safe driving is prohibited	Court: statute not unconstitutionally vague as applied; facts (BAC .09, THC 3.43 ng/mL, multiple off-road events and rollovers) gave fair notice
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain timely retesting and related investigation/expert evidence	Counsel’s untimely motion deprived him of potentially exculpatory retest results and expert presentation on BAC/THC timing	Even if retest would show lower levels, the existing evidence (admission of drinking, detectable THC, BAC > .08 at 6–7 hours, severe driving incidents) makes acquittal not reasonably probable; no prejudice shown	Court: counsel not ineffective; Guilford failed to show prejudice from lack of retesting or expert testimony

Teniente v. State, 169 P.3d 512 (Wyo. 2007) (presumption of constitutionality and vagueness as-applied standard)
Sanderson v. State, 165 P.3d 83 (Wyo. 2007) (vagueness review and resolving doubts in favor of statute)
Dougherty v. State, 239 P.3d 1176 (Wyo. 2010) (as-applied review uses reasonable inferences in favor of State)
Giles v. State, 96 P.3d 1027 (Wyo. 2004) (fair notice principle in vagueness analysis)
Hibsman v. State, 355 P.3d 1240 (Wyo. 2015) (ineffective assistance framework and prejudice requirement)
McGarvey v. State, 325 P.3d 450 (Wyo. 2014) (Strickland-type review and burden to show prejudice)