375 P.3d 1117
Wyo.2016Background
- On November 20, 2012, Candelario pled no contest to larceny, burglary, and possession with intent to deliver; court imposed concurrent 6–9 year terms for larceny and burglary and a consecutive 5–10 year term for the drug offense.
- The district court awarded 666 days of presentence credit (custody from January 25, 2011 through sentencing on November 20, 2012).
- After sentencing, Candelario remained in county jail from November 20 to December 19, 2012 (29 days) before transfer to the state DOC facility.
- In February 2016 Candelario filed a W.R.Cr.P. 35(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence, asserting he was not given credit for the 29 post‑sentence jail days.
- The district court denied the Rule 35 motion; Candelario appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused discretion by denying Rule 35 motion to correct illegal sentence | Candelario: he was not credited for 29 days in county jail after sentencing, so sentence execution is illegal | State: those 29 days are post‑sentence custody/administration by DOC, not presentence credit; Rule 35 challenges only the legality of the sentence itself | Court: Affirmed—post‑sentence custody is not presentence credit and DOC administration claims are not cognizable under Rule 35 |
Key Cases Cited
- Endris v. State, 233 P.3d 578 (Wyo. 2010) (standard of review for Rule 35 illegal‑sentence claims)
- Cothren v. State, 310 P.3d 908 (Wyo. 2013) (defines presentence confinement and requires credit for any part of a day)
- Sweets v. State, 36 P.3d 1130 (Wyo. 2001) (distinguishes presentence confinement from other confinement that would exist regardless of bond on the charged offense)
- Hagerman v. State, 264 P.3d 18 (Wyo. 2011) (failure to award proper presentence credit produces an illegal sentence)
- Tallerdy v. State, 322 P.3d 47 (Wyo. 2014) (post‑sentence jail time cannot be awarded as presentence credit at time of sentencing)
- Pfeil v. State, 336 P.3d 1206 (Wyo. 2014) (Rule 35 addresses sentences illegal in fact, not claims that a sentence is being executed improperly by DOC)
- Gould v. State, 151 P.3d 261 (Wyo. 2006) (administration of sentence by DOC/Parole Board is not remedied by Rule 35)
- Garnett v. State, 327 P.3d 749 (Wyo. 2014) (reiterates that Rule 35 does not address DOC administration of sentences)