Sweets v. State
| Docket Number | S-12-0253 |
| Decision Date | 14 August 2013 |
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
30 cases
-
Davis v. State
... ... See Sen II , 26, 390 P.3d at 777 ; Bird v. State , 2015 WY 108, 9, 356 P.3d 264, 267 (Wyo. 2015) ; Deloge v. State , 2012 WY 128, 9, 289 P.3d 776, 778 (Wyo. 2012) ; Endris v. State , 2010 WY 73, 13, 233 P.3d 578, 581 (Wyo. 2010) ; see also Sweets v. State , 2013 WY 98, 19, 307 P.3d 860, 867 (Wyo. 2013) (de novo review of whether constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy had been violated). Finally, we review capital sentencing using [415 P.3d 686 "heightened scrutiny." Olsen v. State , 2003 WY 46, 57, 67 P.3d 536, 559 (Wyo ... ...
-
Webb v. State
... ... Webb had been sentenced, it did not overrule any precedent that would have supported a conclusion that Mr. Webb's convictions and sentences violated the prohibition against double jeopardy. Instead, it simply reaffirmed our decision in Sweets v. State , 2013 WY 98, 307 P.3d 860 (Wyo. 2013). In Sweets , this Court accepted the Blockburger same elements test as the exclusive analysis used in Wyoming when determining whether convictions and sentences should merge to comply with double jeopardy requirements. Id ., 49, 307 P.3d at ... ...
-
Weidt v. State
... ... This standard applies whether the supporting evidence is direct or circumstantial. Sweets v. State, 2013 WY 98, 14, 307 P.3d 860, 865 (Wyo.2013) (quoting Craft v. State, 2013 WY 41, 18, 298 P.3d 825, 83031 (Wyo.2013)). [ 21] This appeal also requires us to interpret a rule of criminal procedure and determine the effect of a nunc pro tunc order. These are questions of law that we ... ...
-
Tarpey v. State
... ... State , 2018 WY 122, 67, 429 P.3d 28, 44 (Wyo. 2018) ). "The fact that this strategy was ultimately unsuccessful does not require a holding of ineffective assistance of counsel." Owen v. State , 902 P.2d 190, 199 (Wyo. 1995), overruled on other grounds by Sweets v. State , 2013 WY 98, 50, 307 P.3d 860, 876 (Wyo. 2013). In addition, "[a]n unfavorable verdict does not equate to ineffective assistance of counsel." Larkins , 2018 WY 122, 67, 429 P.3d at 44 (citing Woods v. State , 2017 WY 111, 15, 401 P.3d 962, 969 (Wyo. 2017) ). [59] In this case, BS ... ...
Get Started for Free