Byerly v. State, S-18-0033
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming |
Citation | 455 P.3d 232 |
Docket Number | S-18-0034,S-19-0088,S-19-0089,S-18-0285,S-18-0033,S-18-0284 |
Parties | Mark Daniel BYERLY, Appellant (Defendant), v. The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff). |
Decision Date | 27 December 2019 |
Representing Appellant: Christopher Lundberg, Spitzer Law, PLLC, Victor, Idaho
Representing Appellee: Bridget Hill, Wyoming Attorney General; Jenny L. Craig, Deputy Attorney General; Christyne M. Martens, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Russell Farr, Senior Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Mr. Farr.
Before DAVIS, C.J., and FOX, KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, and GRAY, JJ.
[¶1] A jury found Mark Byerly guilty of six offenses: aggravated assault and battery; domestic battery; strangulation of a household member; two counts of violating a protective order; and witness intimidation. He asserts numerous errors on appeal, but finding no grounds for reversal, we affirm.
[¶2] Mr. Byerly presents six issues on appeal, which we restate as follows:
[¶3] The State responds to those issues and presents the additional question of whether Mr. Byerly’s appeal should be dismissed for failure to comply with the Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure.
[¶4] Mark Byerly met Michele Pickerill in 2011, and they dated off and on until August 2013. They began dating again in May of 2014, and they dated and lived together off and on until January 2016. On January 13, 2016, Ms. Pickerill broke up with Mr. Byerly. On January 19, she invited him over, and he stayed the night. The next day, they texted back and forth about getting together that evening for dinner, without alcohol, so they could discuss the future of their relationship.
[¶5] That evening, a friend of Ms. Pickerill’s invited her to join her and her husband for a drink to celebrate the friend’s birthday. She agreed and met them at a local bar where she drank beer and ate nachos. While there, Ms. Pickerill received a text message from Mr. Byerly telling her where he was and asking her to join him.
[¶6] Mr. Byerly and Ms. Pickerill argued in the parking lot, and Mr. Byerly grabbed her by the collar again and shook her. Ms. Pickerill then saw four people walking through the parking lot some distance from them and yelled to them for help.
[¶7] Three days later, on January 23, 2016, Ms. Pickerill reported the January 20 incident to law enforcement. On January 25, 2016, she completed an application for an order of protection against Mr. Byerly, and on February 9, 2016, following an evidentiary hearing, an order of protection was entered. On July 8, 2016, the State filed a criminal information against Mr. Byerly, followed by an amended information on July 12, 2016. As amended, the information charged Mr. Byerly with the following ten offenses, which we summarize as follows:
on her left side, a temporary loss of hearing, and persistent jaw pain.
Count 6: Property Destruction. This charge stemmed from the Count 5 incident and alleged damage to Ms. Pickerill’s bedroom ceiling where the cellphone hit it, and damage to the carpet from the coconut oil.
Count 7: Domestic Battery. This charge was based on abuse that was alleged to have occurred on January 13, 2016. Ms. Pickerill claimed that on that evening, she and Mr. Byerly were at a brewpub with friends, and he offended her by kissing another woman. She further alleged that she left the brewpub and told him not to come to her home that evening, but he did anyway. She alleged that he came to her bedroom, where they argued, and he grabbed her by the wrists and shook her, which caused her pain.
Count 8: Domestic Battery. This count is based on the events of January 20, 2016 at the Mangy Moose.
Count 9: Strangulation of a Household Member. This count is also based on the events of January 20, 2016 at the Mangy Moose.
Count 10: Violating an Order of Protection. This count alleged that on or about April 5, 2016, Mr. Byerly violated the order of protection by indirectly communicating with Ms. Pickerill. Ms. Pickerill claimed that Mr. Byerly left boxes of items with his attorney that purportedly belonged to Ms. Pickerill, but instead contained items meant to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tarpey v. State
...through appellate hindsight. Richmond , 2021 WY 111, ¶ 24, 496 P.3d at 783 (quoting Byerly v. State , 2019 WY 130, ¶ 92, 455 P.3d 232, 255-56 (Wyo. 2019) ). Mr. Tarpey failed to present the facts about which of his potential character witnesses would have testified, so he failed to meet his......
-
Tarpey v. State
...through appellate hindsight. Richmond, 2021 WY 111, ¶ 24, 496 P.3d at 783 (quoting Byerly v. State, 2019 WY 130, ¶ 92, 455 P.3d 232, 255-56 (Wyo. 2019). Mr. Tarpey failed present the facts about which of his potential character witnesses would have testified, so he failed to meet his burden......
-
Jendresen v. State
...attorney.'" Lewis v. State, 2020 WY 110, ¶ 18, 470 P.3d 564, 569-70 (Wyo. 2020) (quoting Byerly v. State, 2019 WY 130, ¶ 67, 455 P.3d 232, 250 (Wyo. 2019)). Second, he must show "that, absent the deficiency, a reasonable probability exists that he would have enjoyed a more favorable outcome......
-
Jendresen v. State
...attorney.’ " Lewis v. State , 2020 WY 110, ¶ 18, 470 P.3d 564, 569-70 (Wyo. 2020) (quoting Byerly v. State , 2019 WY 130, ¶ 67, 455 P.3d 232, 250 (Wyo. 2019) ). Second, he must show "that, absent the deficiency, a reasonable probability exists that he would have enjoyed a more favorable out......