Sheesley v. State, 437 P.3d 830

Background

Sheesley, a resident manager at an adult community correctional facility (Casper Re‑Entry Center), had a sexual relationship with a resident (KJ).
State charged her under Wyoming statutes prohibiting sexual contact between employees and correctional residents (second‑ and third‑degree sexual assault); she pleaded guilty to one count of third‑degree sexual assault while reserving the right to appeal denial of her pretrial motion to dismiss.
She moved to dismiss, arguing the statutes facially violated substantive due process under the U.S. and Wyoming Constitutions by criminalizing private, consensual adult sexual relations.
District court denied dismissal, reasoning the statutes target relationships where consent may be undermined by the employee‑resident power dynamic.
On appeal the Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed de novo, treating the facial challenge as requiring heightened proof and applying rational‑basis review because the asserted liberty interest was not fundamental.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether statutes violate Fifth Amendment due process	Sheesley argued they infringe a federal liberty interest in private, consensual adult sexual relations	State: Fifth Amendment restricts federal action; claim concerns state law so it is governed by Fourteenth Amendment	Court: Fifth Amendment inapplicable; analyze under Fourteenth Amendment
Whether statutes are facially overbroad under Fourteenth Amendment	Statutes reach a substantial amount of lawful, consensual adult sexual conduct and are therefore facially invalid	State: Overbreadth doctrine is largely a First Amendment exception and not applicable; statutes target relationships where consent may be doubtful	Court: No heightened scrutiny — right is not fundamental in this context; statutes survive rational‑basis review and are not facially overbroad
Whether statutes are unconstitutional as applied to Sheesley	Sheesley claimed the statutes criminalize consensual conduct	State: Her guilty plea admits the conduct; statutes clearly proscribe employee–resident sexual contact	Court: As applied to her conduct, statutes valid; guilty plea precludes an as‑applied challenge
Whether Wyoming Constitution independently protects the asserted liberty interest	Sheesley urged independent state constitutional protection mirroring her federal claim	State: Sheesley failed to adequately brief or analyze state‑constitutional factors	Court: Declined to adopt independent Wyoming constitutional rule here — brief was inadequate and prior Wyoming precedent did not compel a broader protection

Key Cases Cited

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (recognized privacy protection for fully mutual consensual adult sexual conduct and limited its holding to contexts without doubtful consent)
Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997) (requirement to define the asserted liberty interest with care in substantive due‑process analysis)
Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 (1973) (overbreadth doctrine: a statute is facially invalid if it substantially prohibits protected conduct)
Ochoa v. State, 848 P.2d 1359 (Wyo. 1993) (Wyoming discussion of facial challenges and overbreadth doctrine)
Moore v. State, 912 P.2d 1113 (Wyo. 1996) (guilty plea admits essential elements and limits as‑applied challenges)