Curtis J. Hamilton, 344 P.3d 275

Curtis Hamilton pled guilty under a plea agreement to conspiracy to deliver methamphetamine and child endangerment; other charges were dismissed and the State recommended a 5–8 year sentence on the conspiracy count.
The plea agreement required Hamilton to cooperate with the State; it expressly allowed the State to file a W.R.Cr.P. 35(a) motion to "modify" his sentence if he failed to cooperate and stated he would not object.
The district court accepted the plea and imposed concurrent sentences: 5–8 years (conspiracy) and 3–5 years (child endangerment).
Months later the State moved under Rule 35(a), asserting Hamilton breached the cooperation term; after an evidentiary hearing the court found a breach and resentenced Hamilton to 8–12 years and made sentences consecutive.
Hamilton appealed, arguing Rule 35(a) does not authorize increasing a previously-imposed, legal sentence; the Supreme Court considered whether Rule 35(a) confers jurisdiction to increase a final, legal sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether W.R.Cr.P. 35(a) permits a court to increase a previously-imposed, legal sentence after it is final	State: Rule 35(a) authorizes "modify" and parties can contract to permit an increase via plea agreement; double jeopardy not implicated where defendant had no reasonable expectation of finality	Hamilton: Rule 35 is designed to correct or reduce sentences—"modify" should not be read to allow increases; increasing a legal sentence violates double jeopardy and the court lacks jurisdiction	The court held Rule 35(a) does not authorize increasing a previously-imposed, legal sentence; parties cannot confer jurisdiction by agreement; the increased sentence was vacated

Pfeil v. State, 336 P.3d 1206 (Wyo. 2014) (de novo review for jurisdictional questions)
Boucher v. State, 288 P.3d 427 (Wyo. 2012) (Rule 35 intended to benefit defendant by permitting sentence reconsideration)
Neidlinger v. State, 230 P.3d 306 (Wyo. 2010) (trial court lacks post-finality jurisdiction except where statute or rule expressly permits)
Nixon v. State, 51 P.3d 851 (Wyo. 2002) (finality of conviction ends trial court jurisdiction absent express authority)
Turner v. State, 624 P.2d 774 (Wyo. 1981) (legal sentence cannot be increased after service begins)
Ex parte Lange, 85 U.S. 163 (U.S. 1873) (constitutional protection against multiple punishments for same offense)
Bowlsby v. State, 302 P.3d 913 (Wyo. 2013) (plea agreements are contracts; parties entitled to benefit of bargain)