Title: DONALD EUGENE MCDANIEL v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

DONALD EUGENE MCDANIEL v. THE STATE OF WYOMING2007 WY 1252007 P.3d 836Case Number: No. 06-283Decided: 08/03/2007
APRIL 
TERM, A.D. 2007

 
 
DONALD 
EUGENE McDANIEL,

 
 
Appellant

(Defendant),

 
 
v.

 
 
THE 
STATE OF WYOMING,

 
 
Appellee

(Plaintiff).

 
 
Appeal 
from the DistrictCourtofLaramieCounty

The 
Honorable John C. Brooks, Judge

 
 
Representing 
Appellant:

Donald 
Eugene McDaniel, pro 
se.

            

Representing 
Appellee:

Patrick 
J. Crank, Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney General; D. 
Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General.                               

            

Before 
GOLDEN, HILL, KITE, and BURKE, JJ., and CRANFILL, DJ.

 
 
CRANFILL, 
District Judge.

 
 
[¶1]      Mr. McDaniel 
appeals an order denying his motion to correct illegal sentence.  He claims his sentences should have 
merged and run concurrently instead of consecutively.  We affirm.

 
 

ISSUES

 
 
[¶2]      We state the 
issue for review as follows:

 
 
Did 
the District Court properly deny Appellant's motion to correct an illegal 
sentence?

 
 
FACTS

 
 
[¶3]      On June 27, 1996, 
Mr. McDaniel was convicted by a jury of two counts of first degree sexual 
assault for forcing both vaginal and anal intercourse upon the same victim.  The assaults were separated in time by 
only a matter of minutes or seconds.  
On September 12, 1996, Mr. McDaniel was sentenced to two consecutive 
terms of fifteen to twenty years in the state penitentiary.  

 
 
[¶4]      Mr. McDaniel 
appealed the conviction.  The only 
issue presented on appeal was whether his right to speedy trial had been 
violated.  This Court affirmed the 
conviction and sentence in McDaniel v. 
State, 945 P.2d 1186 (Wyo. 1997).  After his conviction was affirmed, Mr. 
McDaniel filed a motion for sentence reduction pursuant to W.R.Cr.P. 35(b).  The motion was founded upon Mr. 
McDaniel's assertions that he had been a model inmate while incarcerated.  The district court denied the 
motion.  

 
 
[¶5]      Mr. McDaniel then 
filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence in district court on February 21, 
2003.  One of the issues posed in 
the motion was whether the two sexual assault sentences should have merged and 
run concurrently.  Mr. McDaniel 
asserted that the imposition of consecutive sentences was a double jeopardy 
violation.  The district court 
denied the motion without explanation on March 3, 2003.  Mr. McDaniel filed a motion to 
reconsider on March 24, 2003.  The 
district court again denied the motion on May 8, 2003, explaining that the 
earlier denial was void for lack of jurisdiction.1  On August 7, 2006, Mr. McDaniel filed 
another motion to correct an illegal sentence with the district court.  Although this motion provided 
substantially more legal analysis, the argument was essentially the same: Mr. 
McDaniel had received an illegal sentence because his sentences had not been 
merged and had been made concurrent instead of consecutive.  On August 31, 2006, the district court 
again denied the motion.  This 
appeal followed.

 
 
STANDARD 
OF REVIEW

 
 
[¶6]      This Court 
reviews a trial court's denial of a motion to correct an illegal sentence by 
using an abuse of discretion standard.  
Whitten v. State, 2005 WY 55, 
¶ 6, 110 P.3d 892, 894 (Wyo. 2005) (citing Martinez v. State, 2002 WY 10, ¶ 9, 39 P.3d 394, 396 (Wyo. 2002)).  
However, this discretion "is limited to a determination by the trial 
court as to whether the sentence was legal or illegal."  Id.      

 
 

[¶7]      W.R.Cr.P. 35(a) 
allows a court to correct an illegal sentence at any time.  "An 
illegal sentence is one which exceeds statutory limits, imposes multiple terms 
of imprisonment for the same offense, or otherwise violates constitutions or the 
law."  Brown v. State, 2004 WY 119, ¶ 7, 99 P.3d 489, 491 (Wyo. 2004); Ryan v. 
State, 988 P.2d 46, 62-63 (Wyo. 1999); Cardenas v. State, 925 P.2d 239, 
240 (Wyo. 
1996).  Whether a sentence is 
illegal is determined by referencing the applicable statute or constitutional 
provisions, and is subject to statutory interpretation.  Brown, ¶ 7, 99 P.3d  at 491; Ryan, 988 P.2d  at 62-63.  The determination of whether the 
appropriate rule was applied to a set of facts is a question of law, requiring 
de novo review.  Gould v. State, 2006 WY 157, ¶ 7, 151 P.3d 261, 264 (Wyo. 2006).  

 
 

DISCUSSION

 
 
[¶8]      Mr. McDaniel 
contends that his sentence was illegal because the conduct with which he was 
charged consisted of one criminal transaction, and the elements of both crimes 
were the same.  He argues that, as a 
result, his sentences should have merged and run concurrently instead of 
consecutively.  Among other cases, 
Mr. McDaniel cites to Bilderback v. 
State, 13 P.3d 249 (Wyo. 2000) to support this argument.  

 
 
[¶9]      This Court will 
consider whether Mr. McDaniel's argument is res judicata prior to addressing the 
merits of his argument.  Gould, ¶ 14, 151 P.3d  at 266.  We have repeatedly held that claims 
brought pursuant to W.R.Cr.P. 35(a) are subject to the principles of res judicata.  McCarty v. State, 929 P.2d 524, 525 
(Wyo. 1996); 
Lacey v. State, 2003 WY 148, ¶ 11, 79 P.3d 493, 495 (Wyo. 2003); Dolence v. 
State, 2005 WY 27, ¶ 6, 107 P.3d 176, 178 (Wyo. 2005); Amin v. State, 2006 WY 84, ¶ 5, 138 P.3d 1143, 1144 (Wyo. 2006).  We have 
also repeatedly held that the res 
judicata doctrine applies when a defendant could have raised such an issue 
in an earlier appeal or motion for sentence reduction but did not do so.  Hamill v. State, 948 P.2d 1356, 1358-59 
(Wyo. 1997); 
Mead v. State, 2 P.3d 564, 566 (Wyo. 
2000); Gould, ¶ 16, 151 P.3d  at 266. 

 
 
[¶10]   Mr. McDaniel not only filed a 
direct appeal after his conviction, he also filed a motion for sentence 
reduction pursuant to W.R.Cr.P. 35(b).  
He could have presented his claim that his sentences should have merged 
in his direct appeal, but he did not do so.  As a result, his present claim is barred 
under the doctrine of res 
judicata.  It is also noted that 
Mr. McDaniel did not appeal the May 8, 2003, denial of his motion to correct an 
illegal sentence.  This is an 
additional reason that his claim is res 
judicata.

 
 
[¶11]   Although the Court is under no 
obligation to address the merits of Mr. McDaniel's arguments, we note that his 
arguments are without merit.  This 
issue was adequately addressed in Frenzel 
v. State, 938 P.2d 867, 869 (Wyo. 1997), where we 
stated:

 
 
We 
have previously determined that "the Wyoming legislature intended to define sexual 
intercourse, fellatio and other acts of sexual intrusion as separate and distinct crimes***.'"  Parker v. State, 882 P.2d 1225, 1229 
(Wyo. 1994) (citing Padilla v. State, 601 P.2d 189, 
193 (Wyo. 
1979)).  Separate and distinct acts 
of sexual intrusion, even those separated in time only by a matter of seconds, 
can properly be punished as separate crimes without violating double jeopardy 
protections, Baum v. State, 745 P.2d 877, 882 (Wyo. 1987).  Clearly, 
then, in Wyoming, it is the individual acts of sexual 
intrusion which are prohibited under W.S. 6-2-302.

 
 
The 
charges against Frenzel involved seven incidents of sexual intrusion on four 
different occasions.  On three of 
the four occasions, two sexual intrusions occurred.  Even though those particular sexual 
intrusions occurred on the same date, and were perhaps separated in time only by 
a matter of minutes at most, each sexual intrusion by intercourse, fellatio, or 
other act is a separate and distinct crime and can be punished 
separately.

 
 
We 
find that the district court did not err in denying Mr. McDaniel's motion to 
correct an illegal sentence.

 
 

CONCLUSION

 
 
[¶12]   The order of the district court 
denying the motion to correct an illegal sentence is 
affirmed.

 
 
FOOTNOTES

 
 

1Prior to 
trial, District Judge Grant had been peremptorily disqualified and then District 
Judge Voigt presided over the matter.  
Judge Voigt was then appointed to the Wyoming Supreme Court and Mr. 
McDaniel's case was assigned to District Judge Kautz.  Judge Kautz chose to deny the original 
motion to correct an illegal sentence.  
Not realizing Judge Grant had previously been disqualified from the case, 
Judge Kautz asked Judge Grant to sign the denial because the case originated in 
the First Judicial District and the paperwork was there and not easily available 
to Judge Kautz.  In his May 8, 2003, 
denial of the motion to correct an illegal sentence, Judge Kautz stated that the 
March 3, 2003, denial was void for lack of jurisdiction as Judge Grant had 
previously been disqualified from the case.