Lawrence Floyd Silva, 2014 WY 155

Lawrence Silva was convicted of aggravated burglary and attempted kidnapping; this Court affirmed his convictions and concurrent 12–15 year sentences in Silva v. State (Silva I).
Silva filed a Rule 35(b) motion seeking a sentence reduction based on good conduct, job performance in prison, completion of treatment programs, and claimed rehabilitation.
The district court denied the Rule 35 motion, finding the original sentence remained appropriate; Silva timely appealed the denial.
On appeal Silva raised new claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and Brady violations (withheld exculpatory evidence) that were not presented to the district court in the Rule 35 proceeding.
The State moved for summary affirmance based on Silva’s noncompliant and uncogent brief; the Court also noted Silva was pro se and had later filed a separate post-conviction petition (not before the Court in this appeal).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Silva was denied effective assistance of counsel	Silva contends counsel was ineffective at trial and on appeal	State argues issue not raised in Rule 35 and Silva’s brief lacks cogent argument	Court refused to consider the claim on appeal and affirmed the denial of the Rule 35 motion
Whether the prosecution suppressed Brady material	Silva claims the State withheld exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady	State contends Brady claim was not presented to the district court and brief is procedurally deficient	Court declined to consider the Brady claim on appeal and affirmed
Whether appellate noncompliance warrants summary affirmance	Silva’s pro se brief lacks required form and cogent argument but asks the Court to reach merits	State urges summary affirmance under W.R.A.P. 1.03 due to multiple rule violations	Court exercised discretion to refuse consideration of Silva’s contentions and affirmed the district court order
Whether a Rule 35 motion can attack conviction validity	Silva’s new claims effectively attack conviction validity	State notes Rule 35 is for sentence reduction, not collateral attack on convictions	Court reiterated Rule 35 cannot be used to re-litigate trial errors and refused to consider those arguments

Silva v. State, 271 P.3d 443 (Wyo. 2012) (direct appeal affirming convictions and sentences)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose materially exculpatory evidence)
Kinstler v. RTB South Greeley, LTD., LLC, 160 P.3d 1125 (Wyo. 2007) (court will not consider claims lacking cogent argument or authority)
Mack v. State, 7 P.3d 899 (Wyo.) (Rule 35 cannot be used to attack conviction validity)
Young v. State, 46 P.3d 295 (Wyo. 2002) (pro se litigants receive some leniency but must reasonably adhere to procedural rules)
Belden v. Lampert, 251 P.3d 325 (Wyo. 2011) (issues not raised in trial court generally cannot be considered on appeal)