Summary 2009 WY 108

Summary of Decision issued September 2, 2009

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

Case Name: Moore v. State

Citation: 2009 WY 108

Docket Number: S-08-0276

Appeal from the District Court of Carbon County, the Honorable Wade E. Waldrip, Judge.

Representing Appellant Moore: Timothy D. Moore, Pro se.

Representing Appellee State: Bruce A. Salzburg, Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Leda M. Pojman, Senior Assistant Attorney General.

Facts/Discussion: Moore was convicted of four felonies. Three of his felonies were ordered to be served concurrently with each other. Those three concurrent sentences were ordered to be served consecutively to the fourth felony sentence. Moore argued that the Order Granting Motion for Sentence Reduction made all of his sentences concurrent. He submitted that when the district court granted his motion for sentence reduction, it granted the only relief requested in the motion – that all sentences run concurrently. He claimed that the reduction in the maximum term (from 10 to 8 years) was a grant of additional relief. He also asserted that the Order Denying Sentence Modification was so confusing that he was compelled to seek clarification.

Jurisdiction: Moore’s 2005 pleadings were actually a series of letters, the first of which was a request to clarify the Order Granting Motion for Sentence Reduction. The Court found authority for Moore’s “motion” in W.R.Cr.P. 36 which allows error in the record to be corrected. The Court stated there was a lack of clarity in the Order. The Court found that the letters were a proper motion to correct clerical error and concluded that the district court had jurisdiction.

Res Judicata: The Court focused on whether Moore raised or had the opportunity to raise, the same issue presently before the Court in any previous proceeding. The district court clarified the 2004 Order Granting Motion for Sentence Reduction with its 2005 Order Denying Sentence Modification. The 2005 order clearly denied Moore’s requests for relief regarding the interpretation of the order including Moore’s argument that the prior order made all his sentences concurrent. The district court did not grant Moore any relief in its 2005 order. Moore did not appeal from the 2005 order. Thus, any claims denied by that order, were res judicata.

Conclusion: The district court did not grant Moore any relief in its July 12, 2005 order. It denied the requested relief. And it granted no affirmative relief. The district court’s September 18, 2008 order was entirely consistent with the July 12, 2005 order. The district court’s Order Clarifying July 12, 2005 Order Denying Sentence Modification was affirmed.

Affirmed.

J. Hill delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/ldkv5y .

[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.]