Tucker v. State, 349 P.3d 987

In 2008 Tucker entered conditional guilty pleas to possession with intent to deliver: one count of marijuana and one count of methamphetamine. He reserved the right to appeal.
The district court sentenced Tucker to consecutive terms: 7–10 years (marijuana) and 14–18 years (methamphetamine). This Court affirmed in Tucker v. State, 2009 WY 107, 214 P.3d 236.
Tucker repeatedly sought post-conviction relief, sentence reduction, habeas relief, and writs to this Court; those efforts were denied.
On October 10, 2014 Tucker filed a W.R.Cr.P. 35(g) motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing his consecutive sentences violated double jeopardy under Sweets v. State (2013).
The district court denied the motion, concluding res judicata barred relief and that double jeopardy claims are not cognizable under Rule 35(a). Tucker appealed.

Issue	Tucker's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused discretion in denying Tucker's motion to correct an illegal sentence alleging double jeopardy	Sentences are illegal because both convictions punish a single drug transaction and thus must merge	Res judicata bars the claim because the same double jeopardy issue was previously litigated and rejected	Court affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion; res judicata bars the motion; even on merits, convictions are for separate offenses involving different drugs

Tucker v. State, 214 P.3d 236 (Wyo. 2009) (affirming Tucker's convictions and sentence)
Sweets v. State, 307 P.3d 860 (Wyo. 2013) (double jeopardy analysis relied on by Tucker in his motion)
Mebane v. State, 326 P.3d 928 (Wyo. 2014) (an illegal sentence includes multiple terms for the same offense; Rule 35 may reach double jeopardy issues)
Gee v. State, 317 P.3d 581 (Wyo. 2014) (motions to correct illegal sentence are subject to res judicata)
Dax v. State, 272 P.3d 319 (Wyo. 2012) (res judicata applies to Rule 35 illegal-sentence claims)