Baker v. State
2011 WY 123
| Wyo. | 2011Background
- Baker challenged district court denial of a motion to correct an illegal sentence after remand for resentencing on four remaining convictions from an original six-count meth case.
- On remand the district court reimposed six-to-eight year terms on Counts I–II and 18–24 month terms on Counts V–VI, with Counts V–VI to run consecutively to Counts I–II.
- Baker, self-represented, filed a Rule 35(b) motion for sentence reduction; the district court denied it and also denied a Rule 35(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence.
- Baker also sought access to the complete trial/appeal record; the district court found most materials were provided but that emails/other items were not, ultimately sending CDs containing photographs.
- Baker petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari; the district court later addressed the subpoena for emails and denied it as inappropriate in the criminal context.
- The court affirmed the district court’s rulings on both dockets S-10-0229 and S-10-0230.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consecutive sentences exceed statutory maximum under Apprendi. | Baker argues Apprendi requires jury finding for consecutive terms. | State contends Apprendi does not require jury for consecutive sentencing. | Apprendi does not require a jury for consecutive sentencing. |
| Notice of cumulative crime charging and enhancement. | Baker claims lack of prior notice on cumulative offense charging. | Baker's claim is meritless; consecutive sentences not Apprendi-enhanced. | No Apprendi violation; no notice requirement invalidating sentence. |
| District court had authority to impose consecutive sentences. | Baker argues court lacked authority to impose consecutives. | Court has discretion to run sentences consecutively or concurrently. | District court may sentence consecutively; issue lacks merit. |
| Double jeopardy and merger of sentences for multiple offenses. | Baker seeks merger of counts to avoid multiple punishments. | Offenses are distinct under Blockburger/Bilderback; no mandatory merger. | Offenses are legally different; no mandatory merger required. |
| Denial of access to email correspondence in S-10-0230. | Baker seeks emails between case worker and Public Defender. | Request not appropriate in criminal matter; other venues may exist. | Denial affirmed; district court correctly limited scope in ongoing criminal case. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gould v. State, 151 P.3d 261 (Wy. 2006) (consecutive sentencing not violation of Sixth Amendment per Apprendi/Blakely)
- Bilderback v. State, 13 P.3d 249 (Wy. 2000) (elements test for merger of sentences)
- Najera v. State, 214 P.3d 990 (Wy. 2009) (articulates merger/Blockburger framework in Wyoming)
- Jones v. State, 79 P.3d 1021 (Wy. 2003) (ABA sentencing guidance; considerations for multiple offenses)