Case Title: PADILLA v. STATE

Citation: 

Docket Number: 03-102

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2004-06-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
PADILLA v. STATE2004 WY 6691 P.3d 920Case Number: 03-102Decided: 06/15/2004
APRIL 
TERM, A.D. 2004

 

                                                                                                            

 

TELESFORO 
RAY PADILLA,

 

Appellant(Defendant),

 

v.

 

THE 
STATE OF WYOMING,

 

Appellee(Plaintiff).

 

 

Appeal 
from the District Court of Laramie County

 

Representing 
Appellant:

Telesforo 
Ray Padilla, pro se

 

Representing 
Appellee:

Patrick 
J. Crank, Wyoming Attorney General; Paul S. Rehurek, Deputy Attorney General; D. 
Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Daniel M. Fetsco, Assistant 
Attorney General

 

Before 
HILL, C.J., and GOLDEN, LEHMAN, KITE, and VOIGT, JJ.

 

 

 

GOLDEN, 
Justice.

[¶1]           
Appellant 
Telesforo Ray Padilla appeals from a district court's denial of reconsideration 
of a motion for sentence reduction.  
We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

 

 

ISSUES

 

[¶2]           
Padilla 
presents this statement of the issues:

 

1.                  
Whether 
the judge committed reversible error when he denied appellant's sentence 
reduction by mistake in thinking case was dismissed.

 

2.                  
Whether 
counsel, Mr. Rose, was ineffective when he did not read the April 9, 2002, order 
until May 23, 2002, and noticed the error 45 days after the 
fact.

 

The 
State presents the following issues:

 

I.                     
Should 
appellant's untimely filed appeal be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction in this 
Court to hear and decide his issues?

 

II.                   
Did 
the district court abuse its discretion by denying appellant's motion for 
sentence reduction?

 

III.                  
Did 
appellant have a constitutional right to counsel, and did he in any event 
receive effective assistance of counsel?

 

 

FACTS

 

[¶3]           
After 
being charged with nineteen counts of obtaining property by false pretenses, 
Padilla pled nolo contendere to eight counts and was sentenced on March 23, 
2001.  On March 22, 2002, Padilla 
filed a motion for sentence reduction for docket numbers 26-345 and 349.  By an order entered April 9, 2002, the 
district court denied the motion stating that it had reviewed the Judgment and 
Sentence of the Court entered on March 28, 2001, and found the sentence 
appropriate. 

 

[¶4]           
The 
docket number for the judgment and sentence was also 26-345 and 349.  At some point, a handwritten docket 
number of 26-146 was superimposed over these typed docket numbers throughout the 
record although 26-146 was a dismissed case.  No appeal was taken from that order 
denying the motion for sentence reduction.  
On December 11, 2002, Padilla filed a pro 
se 
motion requesting reconsideration of that order, claiming that the original 
motion for sentence reduction and its denial were filed for a dismissed case and 
no decision was made on the merits.  
According to the State, the incorrect docket number was employed; 
however, the orders were properly filed under 26-349.  On December 16, 2002, the district court 
denied that motion for reconsideration, and Padilla appealed that denial on 
January 2, 2003.

 

 

DISCUSSION

 

 

[¶5]           
The 
State contends that Padilla's failure to timely appeal the order denying the 
motion for sentence reduction entered on April 9, 2002, has deprived this Court 
of jurisdiction to hear his appeal and it must be dismissed.  The denial of a motion for sentence 
reduction is a final appealable order that must be appealed within thirty days 
to obtain the court's jurisdiction. Hopkinson v. State, 704 P.2d 1323, 
1326 (Wyo. 1985); W.R.A.P. 1.05; W.R.A.P. 2.01.  If an appeal is untimely, the court 
lacks jurisdiction, and the appeal must be dismissed.  This Court reviews jurisdictional 
matters de novo.  Tomlin v. 
State, 2001 WY 121, ¶5, 35 P.3d 1255, ¶5 (Wyo. 2001).   After reviewing the merits of 
Padilla's motion for sentence reduction, the district court entered an order of 
denial on April 9, 2002. No timely appeal was taken from that order. Padilla's 
motion for reconsideration alleged that the district court had mistakenly ruled 
on a case that had been dismissed and had not reached the merits of his original 
motion for sentence reduction.  

 

 

 

[¶6]           
Because 
jurisdiction is at issue, we will review whether this Court can obtain 
jurisdiction by considering whether Padilla had timely requested relief from 
judgment as permitted by W.R.C.P. 60(b).1  The Wyoming Rules of Criminal Procedure 
do permit the rules of civil procedure to apply to questions not governed by 
criminal procedure rules.  W.R.Cr.P. 
1(a).2  Further, we have indicated that under 
limited circumstances this Court will consider an appeal from a motion for 
reconsideration.  See Sherman v. 
Rose, 943 P.2d 719, 720-21 (Wyo. 1997) (reconsideration motion must be the 
functional equivalent of a motion to amend or alter judgment); see also Simon 
v. Teton Bd. of Realtors, 4 P.3d 197, 202 (Wyo. 2000) (arbitration 
procedural review request did not alter statutory filing 
time).

 

[¶7]           
Here, 
Padilla must comply with the timing requirements of W.R.Cr.P. 
35(b):

 

(b) 
Reduction. -- A motion to reduce a sentence may be made, or the court may 
reduce a sentence without motion, within one year after the sentence is imposed 
or probation is revoked, or within one year after receipt by the court of a 
mandate issued upon affirmance of the judgment or dismissal of the appeal, or 
within one year after entry of any order or judgment of the Wyoming Supreme 
Court denying review of, or having the effect of upholding, a judgment of 
conviction or probation revocation.  

 

His 
original motion was filed within one year and his motion for reconsideration 
filed on December 11, 2002, must provide grounds for relief under the applicable 
rule of civil procedure and must also comply with that rule's timing 
requirements.  

 

[¶8]           
Our 
review shows that Padilla's motion for reconsideration was not based upon any 
ground that affords him relief from the order denying sentence reduction.  See W.R.C.P. 60.  The contents of his original motion 
requested a review on the merits and the district court's denial made clear that 
it had reviewed the judgment and sentence for which Padilla requested 
reduction.  Padilla's motion for 
reconsideration contended the district court had mistakenly considered a 
dismissed case; however, the record does not support that contention.  Therefore, Padilla's motion for 
reconsideration cannot be considered a proper motion under Rule 60, and the 
district court and this Court are without jurisdiction to consider the 
motion.

 

[¶9]           
This 
appeal is dismissed for failure to invoke the jurisdiction of this 
Court.

 

FOOTNOTES

1Rule 60 in relevant part provides:

(b) 
Other reasons.  -- On motion, 
and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party's 
legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the 
following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; 
(2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been 
discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether 
heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other 
misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has 
been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is 
based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that 
the judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason 
justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.  The motion shall be made within a 
reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) not more than one year after 
the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken.  A motion under this subdivision does not 
affect the finality of a judgment or suspend its 
operation.

 

2(a) 
Scope. -- Except as provided in Rule 54, these rules govern the 
procedures to be followed in all criminal proceedings in all Wyoming 
courts.  When not inconsistent with 
the Juvenile Court Act, these rules shall also apply in delinquency 
proceedings.  In the event that a 
procedure is not established by these rules, the Wyoming Rules of Civil 
Procedure shall govern.