Palomo v. State, 415 P.3d 700

On Sept. 29, 2015, appellant Aventura Palomo assaulted a Cheyenne police officer and kicked a police canine during arrest; officer required medical treatment.
Palomo was charged with one felony interference causing bodily injury, one misdemeanor interference (resisting arrest), and one misdemeanor cruelty to animals; pled not guilty.
Trial was continued several times at defendant's requests; private counsel entered appearance the Friday before trial and moved to continue twice for preparation time; both motions were denied.
Trial proceeded; jury convicted Palomo on both interference counts and acquitted on the cruelty charge.
Court orally sentenced Palomo to 7–9 years on the felony and 1 year on the misdemeanor, granting 408 days credit applied to both sentences; the written judgment omitted whether sentences were concurrent or consecutive and did not specify that credit applied to both sentences.
Palomo appealed the denials of the last two continuance motions and challenged the written sentence as inconsistent with the oral pronouncement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court abused its discretion by denying motions to continue after new counsel entered the Friday before trial	Palomo: newly-retained counsel needed more time to prepare; trial continuance was warranted	State: continuances would prejudice witnesses, court docket was crowded, multiple prior continuances granted, new counsel had little excuse	Denial affirmed — court reasonably weighed factors (witness inconvenience, docket, prior continuances, lack of prejudice shown)
Whether the written judgment is an illegal sentence because it contradicts the oral pronouncement	Palomo: written sentence fails to reflect oral allocation of 408 days credit to both sentences and fails to state concurrent service	State: written sentence is legally permissible	Sentence not illegal, but written judgment inconsistent with oral sentence; remand to correct written judgment to conform to oral ruling (apply credit to both and reflect concurrency)

Secrest v. State, 310 P.3d 882 (Wyo. 2013) (adopts Mendoza-Salgado factors for balancing counsel-of-choice requests against court and witness interests)
United States v. Mendoza-Salgado, 964 F.2d 993 (10th Cir. 1992) (factors for evaluating continuance requests to secure counsel of choice)
United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (U.S. 2006) (recognizes trial court latitude in balancing right to counsel of choice against court calendar and fairness)
Palmer v. State, 371 P.3d 156 (Wyo. 2016) (illegal sentence is a question of law reviewed de novo)
Bird v. State, 356 P.3d 264 (Wyo. 2015) (presumption that silence on concurrency means sentences are consecutive)
Smith v. State, 985 P.2d 961 (Wyo. 1999) (oral pronouncement controls over inconsistent written judgment)