Summary 2007 WY 6

Summary of Decision issued January 17, 2007

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. Please note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: Manes v. State

Citation: 2007 WY 6

Docket Number: 05-301

Appeal from the District Court of Platte County, the Honorable John C. Brooks, Judge

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Edward C. Manes, pro se.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; Paul Rehurek, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Mackenzie Williams, Student Intern.

Issue: Whether the district court erred in refusing to correct Appellant’s sentence.

Facts/Discussion: Appellant pled guilty to two counts in a drug case. He was confined pending sentencing. He received prison terms of six to ten years for a marijuana conviction and three to ten years for a methamphetamine conviction. The district court granted sixty-nine days of presentence incarceration credit. The sentences were confirmed on appeal by the Court. Subsequently, the district court reduced the sentence for the methamphetamine conviction to a ten year term of probation to run concurrently with the six to ten year sentence for the marijuana conviction. A jury trial was held in the explosives case. Appellant was found guilty and sentenced to two to four years. The sentence was ordered to be served consecutive to the sentences imposed in the drug case. As a result of Appellant’s request for sentence reduction, the district court modified the judgment and sentence in the explosives case to make it concurrent. Appellant filed a motion in the explosives case asserting that the concurrent status of his sentences entitles him to 216 days of presentence incarceration credit against both of the sentences. The Court stated that Appellant appealed in the explosives case only, limiting their review. The determination of whether a sentence is illegal is a question of law which we review de novo. A defendant is entitled to credit for time spent in presentence confinement against both the minimum and maximum sentence, if the defendant was unable to post bond for the offense of which he was convicted. A sentence that does not include proper credit for presentence incarceration is illegal.

Holding: The Court found no error in the district court’s denial of Appellant’s motion. With the exception of five days, Appellant was credited with his entire presentence confinement. He was not due the additional five days because they were solely attributable to the drug case and occurred prior to his arrest on the explosives charge.

Affirmed.

J. Burke delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/2r4672 .