401 P.3d 902
Wyo.2017Background
- In October 2014 Alford broke into Robin Monasmith’s home, assaulted her in her bedroom, threatened to return, and was arrested nearby after identification by the victim.
- State charged attempted third-degree sexual assault and two counts of aggravated burglary; Alford pleaded no contest to attempted third-degree sexual assault under a plea agreement that dismissed the burglary counts and recommended 6–10 years’ prison.
- District court accepted the plea on April 23, 2015, and imposed the agreed 6–10 year sentence on June 25, 2015.
- Alford filed a pro se Rule 35(b) motion on June 16, 2016, noting disciplinary-free incarceration and employment and asking to reduce the minimum term to 4 years to enter treatment.
- The district court denied the motion on January 9, 2017; its written order referenced Rule 35(b) time limits and noted the plea resulted from a plea agreement, stating the court had reviewed the file and was fully informed.
- Alford appealed, arguing the district court erred by denying the motion as untimely despite his filing within one year of sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Alford’s Rule 35(b) motion for sentence reduction | Alford: denial was based on an incorrect finding the motion was untimely (filed within one year) | State/District Court: order reflects the court reviewed the file, noted plea agreement, and exercised discretion to deny the motion (not a timeliness dismissal) | Affirmed — court did not deny for lack of jurisdiction; denial was an exercise of discretion and not an abuse |
Key Cases Cited
- Hart v. State, 368 P.3d 877 (Wyo. 2016) (district court has broad discretion on Rule 35 motions; appellate review is deferential)
- Chapman v. State, 342 P.3d 388 (Wyo. 2015) (same principle of deference to sentencing court)
- Boucher v. State, 288 P.3d 427 (Wyo. 2012) (trial judge best positioned to decide sentence reductions and may accept or reject supporting information)
- Hitz v. State, 323 P.3d 1104 (Wyo. 2014) (untimely Rule 35(b) motions deprive the court of jurisdiction; proper remedy is dismissal)
- Tomlin v. State, 35 P.3d 1255 (Wyo. 2001) (timeliness requirement for Rule 35 motions)