279 P.3d 535
Wyo.2012Background
- Patterson was convicted in 2006 as an accessory before the fact to second degree murder; the crime carried a 20-year minimum sentence.
- The district court imposed 20-22 years due to the statutory minimum.
- A month later the State moved to correct the sentence under § 7-18-201 to 240-267 months, granting the motion the next day.
- The correction increased the sentence without explicit notice to Patterson or a hearing.
- Defender Aid motions to reduce the sentence followed; one was deemed untimely, another later adjudicated as timely after a different judge took over.
- Ultimately, the district court set aside the 240-267 month increase and reinstated 20-22 years, which the court later held was illegal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 240-267 month sentence was illegal for lack of notice/hearing | Patterson argues the motion to correct was improper without notice and opportunity to be heard. | State contends correction under § 7-18-201 was proper and permitted the increase. | The 240-267 month sentence was illegal for no notice/hearing; must be set aside. |
| Whether the reinstated 20-22 year sentence violated § 7-13-201’s 90% rule | Patterson contends the minimum exceeded 90% of the maximum, making it illegal. | State argues substantial compliance suffices and the issue is narrow. | 20-22 years violates the 90% maximum/minimum rule and must be set aside. |
| Whether res judicata bars Patterson’s challenge to his sentence | Patterson asserts relief should not be barred by res judicata. | State argues res judicata applies because issues could have been raised earlier. | Res judicata does not bar this appeal; court may exercise discretion to consider the issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Endris v. State, 283 P.3d 578 (Wyo.2010) (illegality of sentence and de novo review standard cited for legality of sentencing)
- Jackson v. State, 209 P.3d 897 (Wyo.2009) (review of sentencing decisions as discretionary; illegal sentence standard)
- In re CT, 140 P.3d 646 (Wyo.2006) (sentence illegality framework; due process considerations)
- Murray v. Murray, The Wyoming Rule cited in opinion (Wyo.1995) (due process requires notice and opportunity to be heard)
- Trumbull v. State, 214 P.3d 978 (Wyo.2009) (probation consideration requirement; rule guiding resentencing)