346 P.3d 944
Wyo.2015Background
- Harris was charged with aggravated assault and battery and alleged to be a habitual offender based on two prior felony convictions.
- At arraignment and change-of-plea the court informed Harris of the habitual-offender allegation and the enhanced penalty range.
- Harris entered an Alford plea pursuant to a plea agreement; the court imposed a 12–16 year sentence within the habitual-offender range.
- Harris later filed a pro se W.R.Cr.P. 35(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing the habitual offender statute targets a pattern of violent conduct and that a jury must find such a pattern (citing Apprendi).
- The district court denied the motion; Harris appealed to the Wyoming Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying a motion to correct an illegal sentence based on habitual-offender enhancement | Harris: Habitual statute requires a proven pattern of violent conduct and a jury must find that pattern (Apprendi) | State: Harris’ convictions fall squarely within the statutory elements; he qualified as a habitual offender and he pleaded guilty | Court: No abuse of discretion; plain statutory language applies, Harris met elements, and Apprendi argument need not be reached after guilty plea |
Key Cases Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts increasing penalty must be found by a jury)
- Kearns v. State, 48 P.3d 1090 (Wyo. 2002) (habitual statute intended to enhance punishment for repeat violent offenders)
- Mead v. State, 2 P.3d 564 (Wyo. 2000) (motion to correct illegal sentence is committed to sentencing court’s discretion)
- State v. Juarez, 256 P.3d 517 (Wyo. 2011) (plain statutory language governs when unambiguous)
- Garnett v. State, 327 P.3d 749 (Wyo. 2014) (abuse-of-discretion standard described for sentence-correction rulings)