Charles Wayne Palmer, Jr. v. State, 2016 WY 46

In 2006 Charles Palmer Jr. pled guilty to three counts of second-degree sexual assault and was sentenced to three consecutive terms of 8–16 years. The district court credited 99 days of presentence confinement to the first sentence only.
Palmer appealed his conviction and sentence; the appeal was affirmed. He later filed a 2015 Rule 35(a) motion seeking presentence credit to be applied to all three consecutive sentences.
The district court denied the Rule 35 motion; Palmer appealed to the Wyoming Supreme Court challenging the allocation of presentence confinement credit.
The State argued Palmer’s claim was barred by res judicata because he did not raise it on direct appeal, and that credit to each consecutive sentence would impermissibly multiply the credit.
Palmer relied on language from Renfro v. State stating credit will be automatically granted for presentence incarceration time on all sentences and argued that meant credit must be applied to each consecutive sentence.
The Wyoming Supreme Court exercised its discretion not to apply res judicata, analyzed the legality of the sentence de novo, and held that awarding credit to the first sentence (i.e., credit against the aggregate term) was proper for consecutive sentences.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether res judicata bars Palmer's Rule 35(a) challenge	Palmer sought relief despite not raising the issue on direct appeal; relied on Rule 35 motion	State argued res judicata bars collateral attack because issue could have been raised on direct appeal	Court declined to apply res judicata in its discretion and considered the claim on the merits
Whether presentence confinement credit must be applied to each consecutive sentence	Palmer: Renfro requires credit be applied to "all sentences," so each consecutive sentence should receive the credit	State: Applying credit to every consecutive sentence would multiply actual time served and be improper	Court held proper allocation is to give credit against the aggregate total; allocating credit to one consecutive sentence is lawful and does not make the sentence illegal

Renfro v. State, 785 P.2d 491 (Wyo. 1990) (announcing rule that presentence confinement credit will be applied to reduce sentence where sentencing record does not reflect credit)
Schubert v. People, 698 P.2d 788 (Colo. 1985) (explaining that for consecutive sentences, crediting presentence confinement against one sentence assures full credit against total term)
Milladge v. State, 900 P.2d 1156 (Wyo. 1995) (discussing application of presentence confinement credit to multiple sentences)
Bird v. State, 356 P.3d 264 (Wyo. 2015) (explaining Rule 35(a) relief is subject to res judicata but application of doctrine is discretionary)