Case Title: Kurtenbach v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: S-11-0262

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2012-12-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
MATTHEW C. KURTENBACH v. THE STATE OF WYOMING2012 WY 162Case Number: S-11-0262Decided: 12/20/2012This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in Pacific Reporter Third. Readers are requested to notify the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002, of any typographical or other formal errors so that correction may be made before final publication in the permanent volume.
OCTOBER 
TERM, A.D. 2012 
 
MATTHEW 
C. KURTENBACH,Appellant(Defendant),v.THE 
STATE OF WYOMING,Appellee(Plaintiff).
 
Appeal 
from the District Court of Weston County
The 
Honorable Keith G. Kautz, Judge 
 
 
Representing 
Appellant:
Diane Lozano, State 
Public Defender; Tina N. Olson, Chief Appellate Counsel; David E. 
Westling, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel, Wyoming Public Defender 
Program.
 
Representing 
Appellee:
Gregory A. Phillips, 
Wyoming Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; D. 
Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Jeffrey Pope, Assistant 
Attorney General.
 
Before KITE, 
C.J., and GOLDEN,* HILL, VOIGT, and BURKE, JJ.
 
GOLDEN, J., retired 
effective September 30, 2012.
 
GOLDEN, Justice.
 
[¶1]      
On September, 18, 2008, this Court affirmed 
Matthew Kurtenbach’s conviction for making a false written statement 
to obtain property.  On May 20, 2011, Kurtenbach 
filed in district court a motion entitled “Motion to Execute 
Sentence.”  The district court denied Kurtenbach’s 
motion, and Kurtenbach appeals that denial.  We conclude that the district court did not have 
jurisdiction to consider the “Motion to Execute Sentence,” and therefore this 
Court likewise does not have jurisdiction to consider this appeal.  
The appeal is thus dismissed.
 
ISSUE
 
[¶2]      Kurtenbach 
presents the following issue on appeal:
 
Should 
the district court’s sentence be ordered to be executed to give effect to 
subsequent sentences in other jurisdictions and to avoid an illegal 
sentence?
 
FACTS
 
[¶3]      
On May 14, 2007, Kurtenbach entered a conditional guilty plea 
to a charge of making a false written statement to obtain property, reserving 
the right to appeal his claim that his right to a speedy trial had been 
violated.  The district court sentenced Kurtenbach 
to incarceration for a period of two to five 
years.  Kurtenbach appealed, and on April 23, 
2008, he was ordered released on an appeal bond.   

 
[¶4]      
While Kurtenbach was released on his appeal bond, South 
Dakota authorities arrested him for crimes committed between April 28, 2008 and 
June 26, 2008.  He was charged and convicted in multiple South 
Dakota counties, and then in North Dakota counties, for various charges. The 
respective courts ordered most of Kurtenbach’s sentences to run 
concurrently with each other and with Kurtenbach’s Wyoming 
sentence.  Kurtenbach remained incarcerated in the 
Dakotas throughout the pendency of his Wyoming appeal.  

 
[¶5]      
On September 18, 2008, this Court issued its decision 
affirming Kurtenbach’s Wyoming 
conviction.  Kurtenbach v. State, 
2008 WY 109, 192 P.3d 973 (Wyo. 2008).  On 
December 23, 2008, the district court revoked Kurtenbach’s appeal 
bond and remanded him to custody of the Wyoming Department of 
Corrections.  On January 30, 2009, the State notified the 
warden of the North Dakota State Penitentiary of Kurtenbach’s 
Wyoming conviction and sentence, and it placed a detainer 
on Kurtenbach to ensure his return to Wyoming custody upon his 
release from North Dakota.  
 
[¶6]      
Prior to this Court’s decision affirming Kurtenbach’s 
conviction, Kurtenbach began sending multiple letters to the 
district court insisting that the court order that his Wyoming sentence began to 
run while he was incarcerated in North and South Dakota.  By 
letter dated February 23, 2011, the district court 
informed Kurtenbach as follows:
 
            
The court has received your letter dated February 1, 2011.  
At this time, the court has thoroughly reviewed your file, including the 
transcript of your sentencing in this matter.  Upon review, 
the court has confirmed that the court never entered an order stating that your 
sentence in this matter was to run concurrently with your South Dakota or North 
Dakota sentences.  In fact, the court has previously informed 
you that it would not consider your case appropriate for concurrent 
sentencing.  Although the appeal bond has been returned in 
this matter, you[r] sentence does not begin to run until you are actually 
incarcerated in the State of Wyoming.  Ms. O’Brien’s 
interpretation of your file is correct.
 
            
As to the copy of the order from South Dakota that you provided to the 
court, the court would inform you that South Dakota does not have the authority 
to order that Wyoming run its sentences concurrently with South Dakota 
cases.  Any mention of concurrent sentencing in any order from 
South Dakota is only applicable to South Dakota cases.
 
[¶7]      
On May 20, 2011, over two and a half years after this Court issued its 
decision affirming his conviction, Kurtenbach filed a pleading 
entitled “Motion to Execute Sentence.” Through his “Motion to Execute 
Sentence,” Kurtenbach argued that the district court had orally 
ordered during his bond revocation hearing that Kurtenbach’s Wyoming 
sentence would begin to run upon issuance of a bench warrant for his arrest. 
 He further argued that Wyoming’s sentence should run 
concurrently with the sentences in the Dakotas because the courts there 
explicitly ordered that their state sentences were to run concurrently with the 
Wyoming sentence.  
 
[¶8]      
On July 29, 2011, the district court entered an order denying the “Motion 
to Execute Sentence.” In so ruling, the court reviewed its response during the 
bond revocation hearing to Kurtenbach’s question as to when his 
Wyoming sentence would begin to run.  The court concluded that 
its statement during that hearing, that Kurtenbach’s sentence would 
begin to run “[p]robably as soon as we issue a bench warrant for your 
arrest,” was not an order but was instead an answer to a factual 
question.  The court found that its response was in no way 
definitive and that it reflected uncertainty inconsistent with an intent to 
issue an order.  The court further found that the South Dakota 
and North Dakota courts had no authority to modify Kurtenbach’s 
Wyoming sentence and direct that it run concurrent with Kurtenbach’s 
sentences in those states.  
 
[¶9]      Kurtenbach 
timely appealed the district court’s denial of his “Motion to Execute 
Sentence.”
 
STANDARD OF 
REVIEW
 
[¶10]   
Whether subject matter jurisdiction exists is a question of law that we 
review de novo.  Neidlinger 
v. State, 2010 WY 54, ¶ 8, 230 P.3d 306, 308 (Wyo. 2010); Lee 
v. State, 2007 WY 81, ¶ 4, 157 P.3d 947, 948 (Wyo. 
2007).
 
DISCUSSION
 
[¶11]   
This Court has held:
 
Once a 
defendant’s conviction is final because he has exercised his right to appeal, or 
the time for appeal has expired, the district court no longer has authority over 
the case. The district court only has jurisdiction to act if the case has been 
remanded or if a specific, express exception conferring jurisdiction is created 
by a rule or statute.
 
Neidlinger, 
¶ 9, 230 P.3d  at 308 (citing Nixon v. State, 2002 WY 118, ¶ 
13, 51 P.3d 851, 854 (Wyo. 2002)) (internal citation omitted); 
see also Lee, ¶ 6, 157 P.3d  at 949.
 
[¶12]   
The Wyoming Rules of Criminal Procedure do not authorize the filing of, 
or a court’s consideration of, a “Motion to Execute Sentence.”  
Such a pleading is not provided for in the rules, 
and Kurtenbach cited no authority for the pleading in his 
motion.  Perhaps recognizing the lack of authority for such a 
motion, Kurtenbach on appeal argues the motion as if it were a 
W.R.Cr.P. 35(a) motion to correct an illegal 
sentence.  Kurtenbach did not, however, file the 
motion as a Rule 35(a) motion, and he has pointed to no illegality in the 
sentence entered by the district court following his guilty 
plea.  Kurtenbach’s arguments on appeal are 
instead directed to enforcement of an alleged oral order of the district court 
and an obligation by the State to take physical custody of him from the facility 
in which he is presently serving a sentence in one of the Dakotas. 
 
[¶13]   Kurtenbach’s 
“Motion to Execute Sentence” is not a motion to correct an illegal sentence, and 
it is not a motion otherwise expressly provided for by rule or 
statute.  We therefore conclude that the district court was 
without jurisdiction to consider the motion.  See 
Lee, ¶ 6, 157 P.3d  at 949 (holding district court lacked 
subject matter jurisdiction because “the 
document before the district court in this instance is not a vehicle for any 
recognized legal remedy under [the] rules”).  Because the 
district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to 
consider Kurtenbach’s “Motion to Execute Sentence,” this Court is 
without jurisdiction to consider this appeal.  See 
Neidlinger, ¶ 10, 230 P.3d  at 309 (“This Court 
enjoys no greater jurisdiction than the district court in such 
matters.”).
 
CONCLUSION
 
[¶14]   
We 
conclude that the district court was without jurisdiction to 
consider Kurtenbach’s “Motion to Execute Sentence” and that, 
consequently, this Court is without jurisdiction to consider this appeal. 
 The appeal is 
dismissed.