Tyner v. State, 2011 WY 60

Tyner was convicted of battery under Wyo. Stat. § 6-2-501(b).
Because this was Tyner's third battery involving a household member, the conviction was enhanced to a felony under § 6-2-501(f)(ii) and he received a split sentence.
Wyoming amended § 6-2-501 in 2009, substantially rewriting the statute to separate battery from unlawful contact.
The amendment created new subsections, including (b) for battery and (g) for unlawful contact; the old language was superseded.
The Information charged Tyner under the superseded version of § 6-2-501(b) despite the alleged conduct occurring after the amendment took effect, rendering the charge invalid.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Tyner properly charged under the amended statute?	State contends the enhancement and charge were valid under the governing law.	Tyner contends the information charged under the superseded statute, rendering the charge invalid.	Information improperly charged under superseded statute; invalid charge requires vacatur.
Can a conviction stand when the charge was based on an obsolete statute?	State argues conviction should be upheld if the underlying conduct violated current law.	Tyner argues the conviction cannot stand due to charging defects.	Fundamental error mandates vacating the conviction.
Does this case require dismissal without prejudice?	State would proceed if properly charged under current law.	Tyner seeks dismissal of the charged information.	Remand with directions to dismiss without prejudice the Information.

Sanchez v. State, 592 P.2d 1130 (Wyo. 1979) (sua sponte recognition of blatant error resulting in miscarriage of justice)
Town of Green River v. Martin, 254 P.2d 198 (Wyo. 1953) (court may notice fundamental error appearing in the record)