Case Title: Apodaca v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1977-11-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
Apodaca v. State1995 WY 34891 P.2d 83Case Number: 94-107Decided: 03/08/1995Supreme Court of Wyoming

Vincent APODACA, Appellant (Defendant),

v.

The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee 
(Plaintiff).

 

Appeal 
from District Court, Laramie County, Nicholas G. Kalokathis, 
J.

Vincent Apodaca, pro se.

Joseph B. Meyer, Atty. Gen., 
Sylvia Lee Hackl, Deputy Atty. Gen., D. Michael Pauling, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., 
Prosecution Assistance Program, Theodore E. Lauer, Director, and Sheryl Smith 
Lansing, Student Intern, for 
appellee.

Before GOLDEN, C.J., and THOMAS, MACY, TAYLOR and 
LEHMAN, JJ.

THOMAS, 
Justice.

[¶1]      The sole issue in 
this case is whether the trial court committed an error of law in refusing to 
order a sentence in an attempted sexual assault case to run concurrently with a 
prior sentence which Vincent Apodaca (Apodaca) was serving on parole at the time 
of the later conviction. Apodaca's appeal is taken from an order denying his 
motion presented pursuant to WYO.R.CRIM.P. 35 in which he sought correction of 
an illegal sentence. We hold that the sentence is not an illegal sentence, and 
WYO.R.CRIM.P. 35 is not an appropriate vehicle to present the issue. The order 
of the district court denying Apodaca's motion is 
affirmed.

[¶2]      Apodaca 
represented himself in this appeal. He states the issue to 
be:

The court below abused its discretion by denying Mr. 
Apodaca's motion to correct an illegal sentence.

In its Brief of Appellee, 
the State reframes that same issue in this language:

Did the district court abuse its discretion in 
denying Appellant's motion to correct an illegal sentence?

[¶3]      On June 1, 1989, 
Apodaca was convicted, after a jury trial, of attempted first-degree sexual 
assault. Apodaca was on parole from a conviction in 1976 for second degree 
murder. Apodaca had initially been sentenced for the murder to not less than 
twenty, nor more than forty, years in the Wyoming State Penitentiary but, 
subsequently, had been the beneficiary of two executive commutations which 
reduced his murder sentence to a period of eight to twenty years. In an amended 
judgment and sentence for the attempted first-degree sexual assault entered on 
August 30, 1989, the district court sentenced Apodaca to a term of eight to 
twenty-five years in the Wyoming State Penitentiary.

[¶4]      Apodaca had 
requested the new sentence be made to run concurrently with the murder sentence 
from which he had been paroled. The district court stated it would withhold a 
determination as to how the sentence should be served until the parole board had 
acted. After the board revoked Apodaca's parole, Apodaca again requested his 
sentence for attempted first-degree sexual assault be made to run concurrently 
with the earlier sentence. The district court declined to take any action until 
Apodaca's appeal from the conviction of attempted first-degree sexual assault 
had been resolved.

[¶5]      In 1991, 
following the affirmance of his conviction, Apodaca filed a motion for reduction 
of sentence. The district court concluded the original sentence "was and is 
appropriate" and denied that motion on May 17, 1991. On April 6, 1994, Apodaca 
filed a Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence in which the district court was 
requested to issue an order to the Wyoming State Penitentiary correcting the 
illegal application of his sentence. Apodaca contended his sentence for 
attempted first-degree sexual assault had been ordered to commence on July 21, 
1989, when it was pronounced, and the Wyoming State Penitentiary improperly was 
treating that sentence as consecutive to the earlier murder sentence. The result 
of the decision of the prison authorities is that commencement of the attempted 
first-degree sexual assault sentence is deferred until after the completion of 
the murder sentence. The district court denied Apodaca's Motion to Correct 
Illegal Sentence without a hearing on April 22, 1994.

[¶6]      It is clear that, 
in Wyoming, a sentence which is longer or shorter than the law provides is 
illegal. Capwell v. State, 686 P.2d 1148 (Wyo. 1984). A sentence that imposes a 
punishment not authorized by the legislature also is illegal. Bishop v. State, 
687 P.2d 242 (Wyo. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1219, 105 S. Ct. 1203, 84 L. Ed. 2d 345 (1985). Apodaca's sentence fits neither category, and it is not an 
illegal sentence. The sentence that was imposed fits within the statutory limits 
for attempted first-degree sexual assault, and the district court had discretion 
to impose the sentence. Norman v. State, 747 P.2d 520 (Wyo. 1987); Duffy v. 
State, 730 P.2d 754 (Wyo. 1986); Daniel v. State, 644 P.2d 172 (Wyo. 
1982).

[¶7]      In this case, the 
district court was aware of the fact Apodaca was on parole from a prior 
sentence. The district court refused Apodaca's request that the sentence on the 
new charge for first-degree sexual assault be made to run concurrently with the 
prior sentence. Further, our rule is clear that, when an individual is convicted 
for separate crimes in separate cases, the sentencing judge has discretion to 
determine whether the sentences shall be served consecutively or concurrently 
and there is no presumption of a concurrent sentencing. Pearson v. State, 866 P.2d 1297 (Wyo. 1994); Loper v. Shillinger, 772 P.2d 552 (Wyo. 1989). If the 
trial court is silent with respect to concurrent service of the sentences, the 
presumption is that the sentences are to be served consecutively. Even if 
Apodaca had sought relief in an appropriate manner, his claim would be 
rejected.

[¶8]      This case is 
analogous to DeSpain v. State, 865 P.2d 584 (Wyo. 1993), in which we held that a 
motion for correction of an illegal sentence was not an appropriate remedy for 
presenting a claim of violation of constitutional protection against double 
jeopardy. Birr v. State, 878 P.2d 515 (Wyo. 1994). Apodaca's claim relating to 
the manner in which the executive department of government is directing the 
service of his sentences cannot be addressed pursuant to a motion under 
WYO.R.CRIM.P. 35. His contention assumes that the judicial department has some 
supervisory role with respect to matters that are assigned to the executive 
department and ignores the constitutional barrier to such action. A Motion to 
Correct Illegal Sentence is not an appropriate remedy for any question relating 
to the functions of the executive department of 
government.

[¶9]      The order of the 
district court denying the Motion to Correct an Illegal Sentence is 
affirmed.