Steven R. Barela v. State
2016 WY 68
| Wyo. | 2016Background
- In 1995 Barela pled guilty to second-degree murder and received a 28 years to life sentence; he did not pursue a direct appeal.
- Over the years Barela filed multiple post-conviction motions and appeals raising plea, counsel, and sentencing issues; courts repeatedly dismissed or denied relief and limited review based on jurisdictional and timeliness grounds.
- In August 2015 Barela (pro se) filed a combined petition seeking habeas relief, withdrawal of plea, and/or correction/reduction of an illegal sentence; the district court denied the motion and concluded the only proper matter on appeal was the Rule 35(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence.
- Barela’s Rule 35(a) motion alleged his sentence was illegal for multiple reasons: DOC charging inmates for personal items, a $50 victim‑fund surcharge, repeal of the Work Release Act (ex post facto claim), DOC/AG classification as "life" blocking community corrections placement, failure to advise of appeal rights at sentencing, and denial of counsel in the Rule 35 proceedings.
- The district court rejected the Rule 35(a) claims (noting the firearms-advisement statute was enacted after sentencing) and held the 28-to-life sentence complied with the statutory authority for second-degree murder; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Barela's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred denying motion to correct illegal sentence under W.R.Cr.P. 35(a) | Barela contends multiple aspects make his sentence illegal (DOC fees, victim surcharge, repeal of work release creating ex post facto effect, classification blocking community placements, failure to advise of appeal, lack of counsel) | The State contends these complaints challenge administration/execution of sentence or are untimely/misplaced; Rule 35(a) addresses illegal sentences, not execution or collateral errors; appointment of counsel not required for Rule 35 motions | Affirmed — Rule 35(a) is limited to sentences illegal on their face; Barela’s claims attack execution/administration or are otherwise improper for Rule 35(a) |
Key Cases Cited
- Barela v. State, 936 P.2d 66 (Wyo. 1997) (prior appeal addressing Barela’s sentencing claims)
- Barela v. State, 55 P.3d 11 (Wyo. 2002) (holding district court lacked jurisdiction to consider untimely motion to withdraw plea)
- Pfeil v. State, 336 P.3d 1206 (Wyo. 2014) (Rule 35(a) does not remedy complaints about how a sentence is administered by DOC/BOP)
- Gould v. State, 151 P.3d 261 (Wyo. 2006) (distinguishing illegal sentence challenges from execution/administration complaints and noting alternate civil remedies)
- Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1962) (motion to correct illegal sentence permits correction of illegal sentences, not reexamination of pre‑sentence errors)
- Hawes v. State, 368 P.3d 879 (Wyo. 2016) (no constitutional right to appointed counsel for noncritical stages such as Rule 35 motions)