Barrowes v. State, 432 P.3d 1261

Truck driver Edward Barrowes was convicted of aggravated vehicular homicide after his semi-truck, while he nodded/slept at the wheel, veered into a parked, disabled tractor-trailer and killed Aleksandr Kozak; a following driver testified Barrowes had been swerving for several miles.
At sentencing Barrowes represented himself, denied responsibility, blamed others, and expressed little remorse; the district court found aggravating factors (recklessness, lack of accountability, available alternatives to continue driving) and sentenced him to 14–18 years.
This Court previously affirmed Barrowes’ conviction on direct appeal.
Within one year of mandate, Barrowes filed a W.R.Cr.P. 35(b) motion for sentence reduction, citing lack of substance use, clean record, rehabilitation, family support, loss of CDL, and psychological testing.
The district court denied the Rule 35(b) motion without reducing the sentence; Barrowes appealed, raising (1) abuse of discretion in denying the motion and (2) an Eighth Amendment disproportionality claim.
The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed: it found no abuse of discretion because Barrowes offered no new mitigating information undermining the sentencing balance, and the Eighth Amendment claim was procedurally barred (could have been raised on direct appeal).

Issue	Barrowes' Argument	State's Argument	Held
Did the district court abuse its discretion by denying the Rule 35(b) motion for sentence reduction?	His sentence was excessive given lack of substance use, clean record, rehabilitation, family support, and that he was not driving erratically or recklessly.	Sentencing court reasonably balanced aggravating and mitigating factors; Barrowes offered no new information to warrant modification.	No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed.
Does the sentence violate the Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual / disproportionality)?	Sentence is disproportionate to his culpability and thus unconstitutional.	Claim was not raised below or on direct appeal and is therefore procedurally barred.	Claim barred as procedural/res judicata; not considered on Rule 35(b) appeal.

Barrowes v. State, 390 P.3d 1126 (Wyo. 2017) (direct-appeal opinion describing facts and affirming conviction)
Hall v. State, 423 P.3d 329 (Wyo. 2018) (standard of review and deference for Rule 35(b) rulings)
Alford v. State, 401 P.3d 902 (Wyo. 2017) (discussing appellate review of sentencing discretion)
Hart v. State, 368 P.3d 877 (Wyo. 2016) (purpose of Rule 35 as a second review by sentencing judge)
Boucher v. State, 288 P.3d 427 (Wyo. 2012) (Rule 35 jurisprudence context)
Johnson v. State, 283 P.3d 1145 (Wyo. 2012) (wide discretion in balancing sentencing factors)
Davis v. State, 415 P.3d 666 (Wyo. 2018) (arguments not raised below generally not considered on appeal)
Nicodemus v. State, 392 P.3d 408 (Wyo. 2017) (res judicata bars claims that could have been raised on direct appeal)