Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bruckner v. State

Supreme Court of Wyoming

May 18, 2018

DUSTIN BRUCKNER, Appellant (Defendant),
v.
THE STATE OF WYOMING, Appellee (Plaintiff).

          Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County The Honorable Catherine R. Rogers, Judge

          Representing Appellant: Dion J. Custis, Dion J. Custis, P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming.

          Representing Appellee: Peter K. Michael, Attorney General; Christyne M. Martens, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Samuel L. Williams, Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Mr. Williams.

          Before BURKE, C.J., and HILL [*] , FOX, and KAUTZ, JJ., and KORELL, D.J.

          KORELL, District Judge.

         [¶1] On August 9, 2016, a Laramie County jury found Appellant, Dustin Bruckner, guilty of one count of sexual assault in the first degree, in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-302 (a)(iii) (LexisNexis 2017). The jury concluded Appellant committed sexual intrusion upon a non-consenting victim who he knew or had reason to believe was physically helpless. He now appeals, claiming his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. We affirm.

         ISSUES

         [¶2] Appellant presents the following issues:

1. Did trial counsel provide ineffective assistance of counsel by her failure to object to inadmissible evidence and failure to adequately advance her theory of the case?
2. Did trial counsel provide ineffective assistance of counsel by her failure to suppress the statements made by Appellant when under investigative detention?

         FACTS

         [¶3] At approximately 11:00 p.m., on July 11, 2015, Appellant travelled to the Peppermill Bar in Cheyenne to meet his girlfriend, Victoria Seeley. While there, Appellant also saw an acquaintance, Chris Jones. Mr. Jones was joined by his girlfriend, who is the victim in this matter, and his roommate. Following last call, Mr. Jones invited Appellant and the others to his home. Upon arrival, Mr. Jones provided a tour of the split-level home, finally convening in the kitchen area on the upper level where they socialized and consumed alcohol through most of the early morning hours of July 12th.

         [¶4] The victim eventually retired to Mr. Jones' bedroom, which is located a few feet from the kitchen area and adjacent to a bathroom. She was absent from the group for at least twenty minutes-but as much as an hour and a half-before Appellant excused himself from the company of Mr. Jones and Ms. Seeley, stating he was going to the bathroom. Approximately fifteen to twenty minutes later, the victim emerged from Mr. Jones' bedroom into the kitchen area. According to Ms. Seeley, the victim appeared very upset and left the residence without speaking. The victim travelled on foot to a neighbor's home across the cul-de-sac where she reported Appellant sexually assaulted her as she slept.

         [¶5] The neighbor called law enforcement, who arrived at Mr. Jones' residence shortly thereafter. Law enforcement questioned the witnesses, including Appellant. Appellant denied the allegations, but then requested he be handcuffed and taken to the police station due to his fear for his personal safety if he remained at the residence. Law enforcement accommodated his request.

         [¶6] At the station, Appellant cooperated with law enforcement by providing a DNA sample and consenting to the review of his cell phone. He was free from handcuffs or restraints. The detective provided Miranda advisements to Appellant. Appellant agreed to questioning which was videotaped. Even though the questioning evolved from conversational to accusatorial, Appellant continued to vehemently deny the allegations. The questioning lasted for about ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.