Auston Davis Coy v. The State of Wyoming
322 P.3d 821
Wyo.2014Background
- In 2008 Coy was convicted in CR-5008 on three counts: Counts I and II (concurrent 30–96 months) and Count III (36–120 months) ordered consecutive to I/II; court later suspended balance for 15 years probation after youthful offender program.
- In 2011 Coy was charged in CR-5923 with burglary, conspiracy, and possession; plea agreement (not reduced to writing): plead guilty to burglary, State dismisses other counts, receive 5–10 year prison term, and probation in CR-5008 would be revoked and original sentence reimposed.
- At sentencing the court orally stated the 5–10 year term would “run concurrently with the first of your criminal files in the other matter”; Coy believed it would run concurrently with all CR-5008 sentences; counsel did not place the plea terms on the record.
- The written judgment in CR-5923 recited the 5–10 year term to run concurrent with Count I of CR-5008; the court revoked probation and reimposed the CR-5008 sentences with credit for time served.
- Coy filed post-judgment motions arguing the sentence did not reflect the plea bargain; district court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing; Coy filed a Rule 35 motion to correct illegal sentence and appealed.
- The Wyoming Supreme Court concluded the imposed sentence was illegal because the State’s interpretation would force an interruption of Coy’s 5–10 year term (violating the rule that a sentence must be served in one continuous stretch) and therefore enforced Coy’s interpretation as the only lawful construction.
Issues
| Issue | Coy's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court entered an illegal sentence | The 5–10 year sentence was to run concurrently with all three counts in CR-5008 as bargained; thus the judgment should be amended | The 5–10 term was concurrent only with Count I in CR-5008; Coy understood the plea | Held illegal as entered; only Coy’s interpretation avoids an interrupted sentence and is enforceable — reverse and remand for amended judgment |
| Whether denial of evidentiary hearing required acceptance of Coy’s factual allegations | Coy argued failure to respond/have a hearing means his allegations must be accepted | State treated dispute as factual (what Coy understood) and relied on plea voluntariness | Court did not require full hearing; evaluated record and counsel affidavit, found Coy’s interpretation the only legal one |
| Whether the plea colloquy satisfied W.R.Cr.P. 11(e)(2) disclosure requirements | Coy argued plea terms were not placed on the record so he could not have knowingly waived rights | State argued the plea was knowing and voluntary; record supports court’s oral pronouncements | Court found the plea agreement was not adequately placed on record by prosecutor/defense and ambiguity favored Coy’s interpretation |
| Appropriate remedy for illegal sentence | Coy sought enforcement of his understanding or withdrawal of plea | State sought to uphold written judgment as reflecting the deal | Court enforced Coy’s understanding by directing entry of amended judgment that avoids interrupted sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Cothren v. State, 281 P.3d 352 (Wyo. 2012) (holding a sentence may not be split or interrupted by intervening probation; prisoner entitled to continuous service)
- Cothren v. State, 310 P.3d 908 (Wyo. 2013) (reaffirming continuous-service rule and approving remand to correct illegal sentence)
- DeLoge v. State, 289 P.3d 776 (Wyo. 2012) (standard of review: legality of sentence is a question of law reviewed de novo)
- Manes v. State, 150 P.3d 179 (Wyo. 2007) (same legal-review principle for illegal sentences)