[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Representing Appellant: Office of the State Public Defender: Diane M. Lozano, State Public Defender; Tina N. Olson, Chief Appellate Counsel; Kirk A. Morgan, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel. Argument by Mr. Morgan.
Representing Appellee: Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; Jeffrey S. Pope, Assistant Attorney General; Prosecution Assistance Program: Darrell D. Jackson, Faculty Director, David E. Singleton,
Student Director, Sophie Dornbach, Student Intern. Argument by Ms. Dornbach.
Before KITE, C.J., and HILL, VOIGT, BURKE, and DAVIS, JJ.
[¶ 1] The appellant, Andrew Mascarenas, was convicted of felony driving while under the influence of alcohol, reckless driving, driving with a suspended license, and driving without an interlock device. He appeals these convictions, arguing tat his constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated and the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support the reckless driving conviction. We affirm.
[¶ 2] 1. Did the appellant receive his constitutional right to a speedy trial?
2. Did the State present sufficient evidence to support the appellant's reckless driving conviction?
[¶ 3] In the early morning hours of October 15, 2011, Lieutenant Hooper of the Rawlins Police Department was standing outside of his patrol vehicle in the parking lot of a gas station in Rawlins, Wyoming. The sound of squealing tires caught his attention, and when he turned to the direction of the sound, he saw a vehicle go over a curb and into a yard. Lieutenant Hooper immediately drove the one city block to the location of the vehicle and found that the vehicle had crashed into a tree and its axle was broken. He observed a man wearing a dark-colored shirt, later identified as the appellant, exit the driver's side of the vehicle. Lieutenant Hooper also saw a man wearing a white t-shirt, identified as the appellant's brother, outside of the vehicle. When Lieutenant Hooper spoke with the men, he immediately suspected that alcohol had been a factor in the crash because both men smelled of alcohol, had poor balance while standing, and slurred their speech. Although the appellant denied being the driver, his brother stated that, " [the appellant] struck a tree." The appellant was placed under arrest for driving while under the influence of alcohol, but refused to consent to a breath test. Thereafter, Lieutenant Hooper obtained a warrant from the circuit court judge to obtain a sample of the appellant's blood for chemical testing.
[¶ 4] The appellant was charged with felony driving while under the influence of alcohol to a degree which rendered him incapable of safely operating a motor vehicle, reckless driving, driving while under suspension, and driving without an interlock device. Once the State received the results of the appellant's blood test, which showed a blood alcohol concentration of .23%, the State filed a new Information, which contained the same charges as in the original Information, but also charged the appellant with driving a vehicle while having a blood alcohol content that exceeded .08%.
Did the appellant receive his constitutional right to a speedy ...