Title: MARK ROCKY HERNANDEZ V. THE STATE OF WYOMING

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

MARK ROCKY HERNANDEZ V. THE STATE OF WYOMING2009 WY 49205 P.3d 183Case Number: S-08-0229Decided: 04/08/2009
APRIL 
TERM, A.D. 2009

 
 
MARK 
ROCKY HERNANDEZ,Appellant(Defendant),v.THE STATE OF 
WYOMING,Appellee(Plaintiff).

 
 
Appeal 
from the District Court of Natrona County

The 
Honorable W. Thomas Sullins, Judge

 
 
Representing 
Appellant:

Mark 
R. Hernandez, Pro 
se.

 
 
Representing 
Appellee:

Bruce 
A. Salzburg, Wyoming Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney 
General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Jenny L. Craig, 
Assistant Attorney General.

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

 
 
VOIGT, 
Chief Justice.

 
 
[¶1]      This is an appeal 
from the denial of a motion to correct an illegal sentence.  The appellant seeks credit for 
pre-sentence confinement.  Finding 
no error, we affirm.

 
 
ISSUE

 
 
[¶2]      Did the district 
court err as a matter of law in denying the appellant's Motion to Correct an 
Illegal Sentence?

 
 
STANDARD 
OF REVIEW

 
 
[¶3]                  
            
A sentence that does not include proper credit for presentence 
confinement is illegal.  Whether a 
sentence is illegal is a question of law, which we review de novo.

 
 

Beyer 
v. State, 
2008 WY 137, ¶ 7, 196 P.3d 777, 780 (Wyo. 2008) (internal citations 
omitted).

 
 
FACTS

 
 
[¶4]      On July 8, 2003, 
the appellant was sentenced to a term of four to ten years incarceration for the 
felony crime of conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance.  As a result of that sentence, the 
appellant was an inmate at the Community Re-Entry Center (CRC) in Casper, 
Wyoming.  On September 4, 2007, he 
was charged with failing to return to CRC after a work assignment.  On December 28, 2007, he pled guilty to 
escape from official detention.  The 
plea was entered pursuant to the terms of an agreement whereby the appellant 
would receive a sentence of three to five years incarceration, to run 
concurrently with the drug conspiracy sentence.  In explaining the plea agreement, the 
prosecutor told the district court the following:

 
 
            
Mr. Hernandez would receive credit for time served from his arrest in 
this particular matter.  I think he 
has substantial credit against the  the  oh [the drug conspiracy 
sentence].  He would not receive 
credit, but these would be run concurrent.

 
 
[¶5]      At the sentencing 
hearing on February 27, 2008, the following colloquy 
occurred:

 
 
            
THE COURT:  Presuming you're 
in agreement, there will be no credit for time served, since he's been receiving 
credit for the other sentence up until this?

 
 
            
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]:  I think 
legally speaking that will be accurate, Your Honor.  He was never paroled, so he's always 
been serving time under that sentence.

 
 
            
And under the law, if credit is going to one sentence, he's not 
necessarily entitled to credit; that his sentence would start 
today.

 
 
The 
Judgment and Sentence reflected that no credit for pre-sentence confinement was 
to be received in this case.

 
 
[¶6]      On September 11, 
2008, the appellant filed a pro se 
Motion to Correct an Illegal Sentence, which motion cited only W.R.Cr.P. 35(a) 
and simply sought credit for 180 days of pre-sentence confinement (September 1, 
2007 through February 27, 2008).1  The district court reviewed the file, 
noted the plea agreement, and noted defense counsel's concurrence that any 
presentence confinement was to be credited against the underlying drug 
conspiracy sentence, and not this sentence.  The appellant's motion was denied 
without a hearing by order dated September 15, 2008.  This appeal 
followed.

 
 
DISCUSSION

 
 
[¶7]      Our law is 
clear:

 
 
A 
criminal defendant is entitled to credit against his sentence for the time he 
was incarcerated prior to sentencing, provided that the confinement was due to 
his inability and failure to post bond on the offense for which he was awaiting 
disposition.  The purpose of this 
rule is to provide equal protection to defendants who are unable to post bond 
because of their indigence.  A 
defendant is not, however, entitled to credit for the time he spent in custody 
when his confinement would have continued despite his ability to post 
bond.

 
 

Gomez 
v. State, 
2004 WY 15, ¶ 18, 85 P.3d 417, 421 (Wyo. 2004) (internal citations omitted); see also Sweets v. State, 2001 WY 126, ¶ 
6, 36 P.3d 1130, 1131 (Wyo. 2001) (appellant not entitled to credit for 
pre-sentence confinement against second sentence when he was serving a sentence 
from an unrelated crime).

 
 
CONCLUSION

 
 
[¶8]      The district 
court did not err as a matter of law in denying the appellant's Motion to 
Correct an Illegal Sentence because the appellant was not entitled to credit 
against this sentence for pre-sentence confinement

 
 
[¶9]      
Affirmed.

 
 
FOOTNOTES

 
 

1W.R.Cr.P. 
35(a) provides as follows:

 
 
            
(a)  Correction. -- The court may correct an 
illegal sentence at any time.  
Additionally the court may correct, reduce, or modify a sentence within 
the time and in the manner provided herein for the reduction of 
sentence.