Taylor Wofford v. City of Laramie, 375 P.3d 740

Background

In 2010 Laramie adopted Municipal Ordinance §10.24.030(H), creating an “aggravated offender” DWUI category for BAC ≥ 0.15% measured within two hours and imposing mandatory minimum jail terms (7 days first offense; 30 days second).
Wyoming statutory DWUI scheme (Wyo. Stat. §31-5-233) does not impose a mandatory minimum for first-time offenders and treats 0.15% mainly for ignition-interlock purposes; mandatory seven-day minimum applies to second offenders only.
Taylor Wofford and Kara Walters were convicted under the Laramie ordinance; juries were instructed only to find BAC ≥ 0.08% for conviction, but prosecution presented evidence of BACs > 0.15% and municipal courts imposed mandatory minima under subsection (H).
Their convictions and sentences were affirmed by the district court; they sought writs of review to the Wyoming Supreme Court, which consolidated the cases.
The City conceded, under Alleyne, that any fact increasing a mandatory minimum (here BAC ≥ 0.15%) is an element requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt; the Supreme Court therefore addressed whether the city could enact the enhanced mandatory minima at all.
The Court found Laramie’s subsection (H) conflicts with the Uniform Act Regulating Traffic on Highways and invalidated (severed) subsection (H), vacating the petitioners’ sentences and remanding for further proceedings consistent with that decision.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Laramie could impose mandatory minimum jail terms for BAC ≥ 0.15% that exceed state minimums	Wofford/Walters: City ordinance is invalid because it adds enhanced mandatory minima inconsistent with state DWUI scheme	City: Municipalities may adopt traffic regulations beyond state law so long as not in direct conflict; ordinance is a valid local regulation	Held: Ordinance §10.24.030(H) is void because it disrupts the statutory requirement that the Uniform Traffic Act be applicable and uniform statewide; city lacked authority to impose those enhanced mandatory minima
Whether BAC ≥ 0.15% is an element that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt	Petitioners: BAC threshold that increases mandatory minimum is an element and must be found by jury beyond a reasonable doubt	City conceded error under Alleyne but had applied ordinance at sentencing	Held: Under Alleyne, a fact that increases the mandatory minimum is an element; city erred when it did not require jury finding beyond a reasonable doubt (concession rendered formal)
Whether §10.24.030(H) is severable from the remainder of the ordinance	Petitioners: Invalidate subsection (H) but leave remainder intact	City: (implicit) ordinance should stand as enacted	Held: Subsection (H) is grammatically, functionally, and volitionally separable and therefore severed; remainder of ordinance survives
Remedy and effect on sentences	Petitioners: Vacatur of enhanced sentences and remand for proceedings consistent with state law	City: (implicit) sentences should stand or be remanded differently	Held: Petitioners’ sentences vacated; remanded to district court for proceedings consistent with invalidation of §10.24.030(H)

Key Cases Cited

Gueke v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs for Teton Cnty., 728 P.2d 167 (Wyo. 1986) (municipalities may adopt more restrictive local rules when statute expressly permits)
Dunnegan v. Laramie Cnty. Comm’rs, 852 P.2d 1138 (Wyo. 1993) (clarifies limits on local authority under statute permitting municipal regulations)
Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (any fact that increases mandatory minimum sentence is an element that must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt)
MF v. State, 308 P.3d 854 (Wyo. 2013) (standards for de novo review of statutory interpretation)
Wyo. Game & Fish Comm’n v. Thornock, 851 P.2d 1300 (Wyo. 1993) (plain statutory language should be given its ordinary meaning)
Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs for Sublette Cty. v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 55 P.3d 714 (Wyo. 2002) (scope of writ of review and appellate remedial powers)