Case Title: TERRY PEPER v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Citation: 

Docket Number: 89-99

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1989-07-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
TERRY PEPER v. THE STATE OF WYOMING1989 WY 152776 P.2d 761Case Number: 89-99Decided: 07/11/1989Supreme Court of Wyoming
TERRY PEPER, APPELLANT (DEFENDANT),

v.

THE 
STATE OFWYOMING, 
APPELLEE (PLAINTIFF).

Appeal from the District 
Court, Big HornCounty, Gary P. Hartman, 
J.

Terry Peper, pro se.

Joseph B. Meyer, 
Atty. Gen., John W. Renneisen, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before CARDINE, C.J., and THOMAS, URBIGKIT, MACY 
and GOLDEN, JJ.

PER 
CURIAM.

[¶1.]     In this case we review 
an order of the district court denying appellant's motion for reduction of 
sentence. We affirm.

[¶2.]     Appellant, Terry Peper, 
was convicted of escape from official detention. He appealed that conviction and 
the judgment and sentence of the district court was affirmed on January 26, 
1989. Peper v. State, 768 P.2d 26 (Wyo. 1989). On March 28, 1989, Peper filed a 
letter in the district court requesting a reduction in sentence in the form of a 
credit for time served in the county jail. The district court denied the request 
and Peper appeals that denial. In this court, Peper requested and was granted 
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. He also asked that an attorney be appointed 
to represent him. We deny that motion.

[¶3.]     Peper's motion for 
reduction of sentence is, necessarily, brought to the courts pursuant to 
W.R.Cr.P. 36. Although Peper did not file a brief in this court1, it is readily apparent from the 
record on appeal that the only issue that could be raised in this appeal is the 
district court's denial of his Rule 36 motion. Our precedents are well 
established that such a motion is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial 
court and the court's decision is accorded considerable deference here. Peterson 
v. State, 706 P.2d 276, 278 (Wyo. 1985); also 
see Mower v. State, 750 P.2d 679, 680 (Wyo. 1988). As was the case in Peterson, there 
is nothing in this record to suggest the district court could not reasonably 
conclude as it did or that there was an error of law committed under the 
circumstances.

[¶4.]     Therefore, the order of 
the district court denying Peper's motion for reduction of sentence is 
affirmed.

 
 
FOOTNOTE

1 Appellant's brief was 
due in this court not later than June 5, 1989.