Boucher v. State, 2012 WY 145

After six sexual assault convictions, Boucher received consecutive prison sentences totaling 30–50 years.
Boucher timely filed two motions for sentence reduction: one through counsel and one pro se.
The pro se motion asserted rehabilitation and a health condition (going blind) justified reduction.
The district court denied the pro se motion without a hearing and did not expressly mention the counsel motion, which is treated as denied.
The court cited finality for victims, the sentencing court's original fairness, and lack of new information as grounds to deny.
The issue is the district court’s denial of sentence reduction and whether it properly considered new circumstances.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial without considering new circumstances was error.	Boucher argues court misapplied law and ignored rehabilitation and new health issues.	State argues proper discretion; weighed factors, no basis to reduce.	Affirmed; no abuse of discretion.

Eckdahl v. State, 264 P.3d 22 (Wy. 2011) (abuse-of-discretion standard for sentence reductions; deference to district court)
Mack v. State, 7 P.3d 899 (Wy. 2000) (district court review with deference; rational basis required)
Baker v. State, 260 P.3d 268 (Wy. 2011) (correct rule-of-law review; de novo if legal question)
Montez v. State, 592 P.2d 1153 (Wy. 1979) (discretion to weigh new information; permanency of sentence)
Carrillo v. State, 895 P.2d 463 (Wy. 1995) (commendable conduct not controlling; district court discretion preserved)
Hodgins v. State, 1 P.3d 1259 (Wy. 2000) (parole board may be more appropriate arbiter of early release)