Kurtenbach v. State, 290 P.3d 1101

Kurtenbach was convicted in Wyoming for making a false written statement to obtain property and sentenced to two to five years on May 14, 2007.
On May 20, 2011, Kurtenbach filed a district court motion titled 'Motion to Execute Sentence' which the district court denied.
Wyoming appellate decision on September 18, 2008 affirmed his Wyoming conviction; bond revocation and custody actions followed in late 2008 and early 2009.
While incarcerated in North Dakota and South Dakota for other offenses, those states ordered sentences to run concurrently with Wyoming, though Wyoming had not entered a concurrent-sentencing order.
In February 2011 the district court informed Kurtenbach that it had not ordered concurrent running of sentences and that South Dakota could not direct Wyoming to run concurrently; in May 2011 Kurtenbach argued for execution of his Wyoming sentence and concurrency.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction to consider motion to execute	Kurtenbach claims district court should execute to align with other states' sentences.	State contends district court had no authority to modify or enforce concurrent execution; no proper motion exists.	District court lacked jurisdiction; this Court lacks jurisdiction.

Neidlinger v. State, 230 P.3d 306 (Wy. 2010) (lack of jurisdiction when no recognized remedy exists)
Nixon v. State, 51 P.3d 851 (Wy. 2002) (final conviction limits district court authority absent remand or express exception)
Lee v. State, 157 P.3d 947 (Wy. 2007) (district court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction when remedy not provided by rules)