Title: ROBERT LEE DOLENCE V. THE STATE OF WYOMING

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

ROBERT LEE DOLENCE V. THE STATE OF WYOMING2005 WY 27107 P.3d 176Case Number: 04-127Decided: 03/01/2005
 
 
OCTOBER 
TERM, A.D. 2004

 
 
                                                                                                            

ROBERT 
LEE DOLENCE,

 
 
Appellant

(Defendant),

 
 
v.

 
 
THE 
STATE OF WYOMING,

 
 
Appellee

(Plaintiff) 
.

 
 
 
 

Appeal 
from the DistrictCourtofNatrona  
County

The 
Honorable W. Thomas Sullins, Judge

 
 

Representing 
Appellant:

            
Robert L. Dolence, pro se. 

 
 

Representing 
Appellee:

            
Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; Paul Rehurek, Deputy Attorney 
General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and James 
Michael Causey, Assistant Attorney General. 

 
 
Before 
HILL, C.J., and GOLDEN, KITE, and VOIGT, JJ., and BRACKLEY, 
DJ.

 
 

KITE, 
Justice.

 
 
[¶1]      Appellant Robert 
Dolence appeals from the district court's order denying his petition for an 
order nunc pro tunc.1 He argues that the district 
court erred by refusing to grant an order nunc pro tunc to establish a minimum 
term for his life sentence.  We 
conclude Mr. Dolence's appeal is barred under the doctrine of res 
judicata.

 
 
 
 
ISSUES

 
 
[¶2]      Mr. 
Dolence presents the following 
issues on appeal:

 
 
I.          
Did the trial court properly deny appellant's petition for an order nunc 
pro tunc?

 
 
II.          
Assuming that an order nunc pro tunc was an appropriate procedural means 
to challenge appellant's judgment and sentence, did the trial court properly 
deny the motion?

 
 
The 
State phrases the issues as follows:

 
 

I.                     
Has 
appellant's sentence already been determined to be legal, and, if so, is 
appellant's claim res judicata?

 
 

II.                   
Did 
the district court err in denying appellant's petition for nunc pro 
tunc?

 
 
III. 
        
Should appellant be subject to costs and attorney's fees for filing a 
frivolous appeal?

 
 
 
 
FACTS

 
 
[¶3]      The underlying procedural history of this 
case is set out in Dolence v. State, 
921 P.2d 1103 (Wyo. 1996) (Dolence I­).  To summarize, Mr. Dolence pled guilty in 
1976 to one count of first-degree rape and one count of assault with a deadly 
weapon.   Id.  The district court sentenced him to 
serve a term of life in prison for the rape and a term of not less than seven 
nor more than fourteen years on the assault conviction.  Id.  
Mr. Dolence did not 
take a direct appeal of his judgment and sentence; however, in 1996, he filed a 
pro se motion to correct an illegal 
sentence.  Id.  
The district court denied Mr. Dolence's motion, and he appealed to 
this Court.  Id.  
We affirmed his sentence in Dolence I.  Id. at 1104.  

 
 
[¶4]      Over the years 
since that first appeal, Mr. Dolence has filed many motions with the district 
court challenging the validity of his life sentence.  The motion that is the subject of this 
appeal was filed on March 10, 2004, and was entitled "Petition for Nunc Pro 
Tunc."  In his petition, Mr. Dolence 
requested that the district court enter an order nunc pro tunc in order to 
correct omissions and ambiguities in his sentence.  In particular, he argued that, "the 
district court sentenced [him] to a fixed definite term of life imprisonment . . 
. which prejudiced [him] and deprived him of his due process and equal 
protection of the laws."  The 
district court denied his petition, and Mr. Dolence perfected an appeal to this 
Court.  

 

 
 
DISCUSSION

 
 

[¶5]      Mr. 
Dolence 
claims he is entitled to an order nunc pro tunc because the judgment and 
sentencing order is ambiguous and omitted a minimum term for his life 
sentence.  The State maintains that 
a request for a nunc pro tunc order is not the proper procedural mechanism for 
contesting the legality of his sentence.  
The State also argues that Mr. Dolence is barred, under the doctrine of 
res judicata, from raising this issue because it was decided in his earlier 
appeal.  We conclude that the res 
judicata argument is dispositive, and consequently, turn directly to that 
issue.  

 
 
[¶6]      The doctrine of 
res judicata applies to criminal matters as well as civil matters.  "This court has repeatedly held that 
issues raised and considered in a prior criminal appeal are res judicata, and 
cannot be relitigated by a defendant in a subsequent collateral attack."  Lacey v. State, 2003 WY 148, ¶11, 79 P.3d 493, ¶11 (Wyo. 2003) (citing McCarty v. State, 929 P.2d 524, 525 
(Wyo. 
1996)).  There are four factors that 
must be satisfied in order for the doctrine of res judicata to bar consideration 
of an issue: 

 
 
(1) 
identity in parties; (2) identity in subject matter; (3) the issues are the same 
and relate to the subject matter; and (4) the capacities of the persons are 
identical in reference to both the subject matter and the issues between 
them.

 
 

Lacey, 
¶11.  

 
 
[¶7]      Obviously, the 
parties - the State and Mr. Dolence - are identical in both proceedings.  Thus, our focus is on comparing the 
subject matter and issues raised.  
In the current matter, Mr. Dolence argues that he is entitled to an order 
nunc pro tunc because the district court sentenced him to serve a term of not 
less than life in prison and did not specify a minimum and maximum term of 
imprisonment as required by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-313 (Michie 1957).  In his prior appeal, we described his 
argument as follows:

 
 
Appellant 
argues that his life sentence was illegal because it did not comply with the 
indeterminate sentence statute.  
Specifically, he contends that the district court erred by sentencing him 
to serve a life term on his first-degree rape conviction without specifying a 
minimum term.  

 
 

Dolence 
I, 921 P.2d  at 1103.  It is apparent that 
Mr. Dolence's contentions in both appeals are identical.  Because this Court decided this issue in 
Mr. Dolence's first appeal, the doctrine of res judicata bars our consideration 
of his claim in the present appeal.2

 
 
 [¶8]     
Affirmed.

 
 
FOOTNOTES

 
 

1A nunc 
pro tunc order is used to correct an inaccuracy in an earlier order.  Johnson v. State, 914 P.2d 810, 812 
(Wyo. 1996); Christensen v. State, 854 P.2d 675, 682 
(Wyo. 
1993).  A district court may not, 
however, use a nunc pro tunc order to make a substantive change in a judgment or 
order.  See, Johnson, 914 P.2d  at 812; Eddy v. First Wyoming Bank, N.A.-Lander, 
713 P.2d 228, 234 (Wyo. 1986).

2The 
State requests that we impose sanctions 
against Mr. Dolence pursuant to Wyo.R.App.P. 10.05.  We conclude that the circumstances 
presented here do not warrant sanctions.