Summary 2007 WY 48

Summary of Decision issued March 16, 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 with 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: Garcia v. State

Citation: 2007 WY 48

Docket Number: 06-53

Appeal from the District Court of Campbell County, the Honorable John R. Perry, Judge

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Richard B. Lipka of Gillette, Wyoming and Robert A. Ratliff of Mobile, Alabama.

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

Issue: Whether the district court erred when it found Appellant’s sentence was not illegal and therefore not subject to correction under W.R.Cr.P. 35(a), where the sentencing court considered Appellant’s drug and alcohol abuse, work history, and the nature of the crimes committed, in pronouncing sentence.

Facts/Discussion: Appellant pled guilty to murder and conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery and was sentenced to consecutive sentences of life and twenty to twenty-five years in prison, respectively for those crimes. He appealed his sentence on the basis that the trial court in sentencing him, considered facts not proven beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury.
Standard of Review: Review of a motion to correct illegal sentences involves questions of constitutional law which the Court reviews de novo.
Appellant claimed that his sentence offended constitutional precepts because the sentencing court considered factors that were not proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Appellant relied on Apprendi v. New Jersey and Blakely v. Washington. The Court noted that it has previously discussed that line of cases as it relates to Wyoming’s sentencing structure in Gould v. State and Janssen v. State. In Smith v. State, the Court discussed some of the issues Appellant attempted to raise in the instant appeal.
Appellant pled guilty to first-degree murder. Under Wyoming law, murder carries a minimum sentence of life in prison and a maximum penalty of death. Appellant was sentenced to life in prison and therefore, his sentence was within the statutory range for the crime of murder. Apprendi and its progeny do not affect the legality of Appellant’s sentences because both fell within the prescribed statutory maximum terms for each of the crimes to which he pled guilty. Appellant was sentenced under Wyoming’s indeterminate sentencing statute and did not involve judicial fact finding that increased either sentence beyond the statutory maximum for the crimes he committed.

Holding: The district court did not err in denying Appellant’s motion to correct an illegal sentence under W.R.Cr.P. 35(a). Appellant’s sentences were within the applicable statutory limits and did not violate the United States Constitution, Wyoming Constitution, or any other law.

Affirmed.

C.J. Voigt delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/39xqqo .