Winstead v. State
2011 WY 137
| Wyo. | 2011Background
- Winstead pled guilty to three counts of third degree sexual assault involving three victims and received ten to fifteen years on each count.
- Sentence structure: count IV first, then counts V and VI consecutively to the first and concurrently with each other.
- In 2008, prosecutor sought clarification and pre-sentence credit; district court amended judgment nunc pro tunc to credit 396 days pre-sentence confinement.
- In 2010, Winstead moved under Rule 35(a) to correct an illegal sentence, claiming merger and concurrency; district court denied.
- This appeal follows, with the central dispute whether the sentences should have merged and been concurrent, or were illegal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata bars review | Winstead argues the claim was not raised earlier due to lack of counsel and knowledge. | State contends the claim was barred by res judicata because it could have been raised earlier. | Yes; res judicata bars the appeal. |
| If not barred, did the district court abuse in denying 35(a) relief | The sentences should merge and run concurrent, rendering the sentence illegal. | Offenses involved different victims; no merger required; sentence not illegal. | Not reached; barred by res judicata. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cooper v. State, 2010 WY 22 (Wy. 2010) (Rule 35(a) claims subject to res judicata)
- Moore v. State, 2009 WY 108 (Wy. 2009) (res judicata applies when issue could have been raised earlier)
- Chaparro v. Comm'r of Corr., 120 Conn.App. 41 (Conn. App. 2010) (lack of knowledge not good cause for late filing)
- Rouse v. State, 966 P.2d 967 (Wy. 1998) (merger analysis when multiple victims; separate offenses may not merge)
- Najera v. State, 2009 WY 105 (Wy. 2009) (concerns about sentencing merger doctrine)