Cody woman alleged to have harassed rival again

Posted 5/28/26

While awaiting trial on allegations that she harassed a romantic rival, a Cody woman is alleged to have done it again.

Despite being ordered months ago to stay away from her ex-boyfriend’s …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in

Cody woman alleged to have harassed rival again

Posted

While awaiting trial on allegations that she harassed a romantic rival, a Cody woman is alleged to have done it again.

Despite being ordered months ago to stay away from her ex-boyfriend’s current partner, authorities say 22-year-old Alexis Manoguerra approached the other woman at a Cody store this month and lobbed profane insults at her.

Manoguerra faces a misdemeanor count of violating a protection order in connection with the May 11 incident. Prosecutors charged her with two misdemeanor counts of stalking and a felony count of property destruction back in March for allegedly harassing her ex and his girlfriend with threatening messages and etching the word “whore” into the side of the girlfriend’s car. 

She has pleaded not guilty to all four charges.

Manoguerra had been free on a $25,000 surety bond since late March, with conditions that included staying away from the couple.

However, on the afternoon of May 11, Manoguerra and her ex’s girlfriend crossed paths at the Maverik gas station on Cody’s Big Horn Avenue. The other woman said she tried to avoid Manoguerra and waited until she left the store to check out. But, according to her account, Manoguerra then came back inside, approached her from behind and said, “Boo, b—.”

The woman “informed me she had one headphone in playing music in her ear, so she did not fully hear everything Alexis [Manoguerra] had said to her,” Cody Police Officer Clint Steward wrote in a charging affidavit, “but she heard Alexis calling her ‘a b—’ and ‘a whore’.” 

Manoguerra then allegedly followed the woman and walked toward her vehicle.

Steward said police later reviewed surveillance footage from Maverik and found it matched the woman’s account. Manoguerra was rearrested on May 16, before being re-released on $25,000 worth of additional surety bonds on May 19; that required paying a bondsman $2,500.

Deputy Park County Prosecuting Attorney Marina Tucker had unsuccessfully argued that Manoguerra should be required to post at least $10,000 in cash to go free, citing in part concerns about Manoguerra’s “ability to conform to court orders [and] to control her emotions.”

For her part, Manoguerra said she’d been doing well on bond and that she wants to seek a protection order against the couple for actions they’ve taken against her.

      

A contentious background

Manoguerra previously claimed to have been the victim in the situation during a protection order hearing held in Park County Circuit Court in March. At that same hearing, Manoguerra openly admitted to vandalizing the other woman’s vehicle, used profanity, extended her middle finger, said she hoped the couple died and said things would get “worse” for the other woman. Roughly a week later, Manoguerra offered a lengthy apology to Circuit Court Judge Joey Darrah, saying she’d been caught up in the emotion of the situation.

“... I promise to you that it will also be my last time ever going to jail, and that I have learned my lesson and will right my wrongdoings however I need to do so,” Manoguerra told the court on March 10.

Following her remarks, Darrah agreed to modify Manoguerra’s bond from $25,000 cash only to allow a surety option, which let the defendant hire a bondsman for $2,500. The judge also imposed conditions on Manoguerra that included wearing a location-tracking ankle monitor and staying away from her ex and his girlfriend.

After the incident at Maverik, Tucker asked for bail to be set at $5,000 cash on the new charge. At a May 18 hearing, Tucker called Manoguerra’s actions a “pretty blatant violation — which is caught on video camera — of her directly accosting and apparently harassing one of the victims in this case, despite having an ankle monitor and despite being in a public location.”

However, shortly before the hearing began, Manoguerra’s mother wrote an email to the court in which she asserted that her daughter was “doing amazing” on bond, but had been harassed and “tormented” by the couple and one of their friends. The mother, who lives in California, said Manoguerra was at one point followed home and had one of her tires slashed.

“She is in constant fear but yet the one getting in trouble again and has now lost her job that she has had for over a year because of this second arrest,” the mother wrote, saying she wishes Manoguerra “could just leave Wyoming and come home and never return again.”

      

Bonds set

Judge Darrah ultimately set bail at $5,000 cash or surety. He told Manoguerra he takes the allegations “very, very seriously,” because “these kinds of cases are where bad things happen.”

“I’m not saying it will in your case, but I’ve seen it,” he said, so “we want to make sure there is some security in place.”

Prosecutors also moved to revoke Manoguerra’s bond in the earlier case, which is now pending in Park County District Court.

At a May 19 hearing, defense attorney Sam Krone argued the circuit court’s $5,000 cash or surety bond was sufficient to cover the felony district court case as well; he presented testimony from Manoguerra’s bondsman that she’s been exceptionally compliant.

However, Tucker said requiring Manoguerra to post $10,000 in cash would “create a little bit more incentive to her to comply with the court order, given that there were already quite a few restrictions on her, and she violated them rather blatantly.”

District Court Commissioner Jim Davis settled on a $20,000 cash or surety bond on top of the circuit court’s. Davis said there is evidence that the previous bond was violated “fairly blatantly” and “there’s certainly probable cause to believe she hasn’t done all that well [on bond].”

The stalking and vandalism charges are tentatively set to be tried on Aug. 3 in district court while the alleged protection order violation is set for an Oct. 8 trial in circuit court.

Comments

No comments on this story    Please log in to comment by clicking here
Please log in or register to add your comment