Jerele Craig Cothren, Jr. v. The State of Wyoming
310 P.3d 908
Wyo.2013Background
- Cothren challenges an amended judgment and sentence following remand for resentencing in the Seventh Judicial District.
- The court finds the remanded sentence still illegal and reverses to allow an amended sentence.
- Cothren sought to withdraw his guilty plea and reframe the plea as a cold plea to keep benefits while arguing for a lesser sentence.
- The district court denied withdrawal, allowed rehabilitation testimony, and imposed a sentence identical to the original one.
- Remand is required to correct the sentence so it is served in a single uninterrupted stretch and to determine time actually served, without addressing good time adjustments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the district court abuse its discretion denying withdrawal of the guilty plea? | Cothren sought withdrawal as fair; argued plea could not be fully performed. | State maintained the plea should stand; withdrawal not warranted given the circumstances. | No abuse; denial affirmed; plea remained viable and proper under the circumstances. |
| Did the district court err in not retroactively rejecting the plea agreement and sentencing anew while maintaining dismissal of charges? | Cothren asserts the State should be held to the agreement and new sentence. | State contends the plea agreement could not be re-imposed to alter remand outcomes. | Court declined to reopen plea to change the sentence; remanded to implement a lawful, concurrent sentence. |
| Did the district court err by curing the illegality of the sentence without adjusting length for rehabilitation efforts? | Cothren argues rehabilitation should reduce sentence. | State argues sentencing length tied to bargain; rehabilitation cannot automatically shorten it. | Court did not reduce the sentence based on rehabilitation; citywide considerations required remand to fix service interruption. |
| Did the district court improperly grant credit for time served or impose an illegal sentence due to time-credit calculations? | Cothren contends inadequate credit; seeks correct time served. | State agrees credit was insufficient; calculation hinges on interleaved sentences. | Time-credit issue recognized as problematic; remand required to calculate actual time served and align with uninterrupted service, without determining good time. |
Key Cases Cited
- North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (U.S. 1969) (constitutional requirement to credit punishment already endured in retrial sentencing)
- Ex parte Lange, 18 Wall. 163 (U.S. 1874) (double punishment protection for same offense)
- Osborn v. State, 2012 WY 159 (Wy. 2012) (plea withdrawal denied when bargaining yielded a favorable sentence)
- Moronese v. State, 271 P.3d 1011 (Wy. 2012) (time credit standards for prison sentences on appeal)
- Hagerman v. State, 264 P.3d 18 (Wy. 2011) (requirement to consider presentence confinement credit; standards of review)
- Chapman v. State, 2013 WY 57 (Wy. 2013) (judicial economy in correcting illegal sentences; remand for proper execution)