ruling where he merely brought to the Supreme

Court’s attention a mass of vexatious materials created by him, directed to the trial judge. Pote v. State, 733 P.2d 1018, 1987 Wyo. LEXIS 406 (Wyo. 1987). In a case involving a motion for the return of seized property, defendant’s motion for recusal of the trial judge was properly denied because another judge found that, other than the fact that rulings in the case were largely adverse to defendant, defendant pointed out no fact, nor did he articulate in argument, that the rulings of the court somehow showed bias or prejudice against him. Deloge v. State, 2007 WY 71, 156 P.3d 1004, 2007 Wyo. LEXIS 77 (Wyo. 2007), reh’g denied, 2007 Wyo. LEXIS 99 (Wyo. May 23, 2007). In a third degree sexual assault case, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied defendant’s motion for change of judge under Wyo. R. Crim. P. 21.1(b) as the Rule did not prohibit the judge assigned to decide the motion from considering the lower court’s re- cord, and defendant did not meet his burden of proving that the district court judge was per- sonally biased or prejudiced toward him or his attorney. The district court judge’s comment that, in light of the allegations contained in the