Title: ESTEBAN LEGARDA-CORNELIO aka OTHONIEL LEGARDA CORNELIO V. THE STATE OF WYOMING

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

ESTEBAN LEGARDA-CORNELIO aka OTHONIEL LEGARDA CORNELIO V. THE STATE OF WYOMING2009 WY 136218 P.3d 968Case Number: S-09-0083Decided: 11/06/2009
OCTOBER 
TERM, A.D. 2009

 
 
ESTEBAN 
LEGARDA-CORNELIO aka OTHONIEL LEGARDA CORNELIO,

 
 
Appellant

(Defendant),

 
 
v.

 
 
THE 
STATE OF WYOMING,

 
 
Appellee

(Plaintiff).

 
 
Appeal 
from the District Court of Natrona County

The 
Honorable David B. Park, Judge

 
 

Representing 
Appellant:

Esteban 
Cornelio LeGarda, Pro 
se.

 
 

Representing 
Appellee:

Bruce 
A. Salzburg, Wyoming Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney 
General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Justin A. 
Daraie, Prosecution Assistance Program, Student Director and 
Intern.

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

 
 
VOIGT, 
Chief Justice.

 
 
[¶1]      Esteban 
Legarda-Cornelio (the appellant) was convicted and sentenced in state court and 
then in federal court for unrelated offenses.  He subsequently filed a W.R.Cr.P. 35(b) 
motion with the state district court asking it to order that his state sentences 
run concurrently with his federal sentences, which motion the district court 
denied.  The appellant appeals that 
denial.  

 
 
ISSUE

 
 
[¶2]      Did the district 
court abuse its discretion in denying the appellant's W.R.Cr.P. 35(b) 
motion?

 
 
FACTS

 
 
[¶3]      On December 
7, 2007, the appellant entered into a plea agreement in which he pleaded guilty 
to escape and joyriding.  The plea 
agreement set forth sentences of not less than two nor more than three years for 
escape and a one-year sentence for joyriding.  These sentences were to run concurrently 
with one another.  On February 13, 
2008, at the appellant's sentencing hearing, although not part of the formal 
plea agreement, the appellant requested that the district court order that his 
state sentences run concurrently with impending federal sentences that he 
believed he was likely to receive.  
The district court accepted the plea agreement and in response to 
appellant's separate request for concurrent sentences, the district court noted 
that it had "no objection with them being concurrent with any federal sentence 
imposed."

 
 
[¶4]      On November 26, 
2008, the appellant was sentenced in federal court for numerous offenses.  The federal court ordered the federal 
sentences to run concurrently with one another as well as concurrently with a 
federal life sentence it also imposed on the appellant.  The federal court made no mention of the 
appellant's previous state sentences; however, federal officials are now 
treating the federal and state sentences as running consecutive to one 
another.1

 
 
[¶5]      Following his 
federal sentencing, the appellant filed a W.R.Cr.P. 35(b) motion in state 
district court.2  In the W.R.Cr.P. 35(b) motion, the 
appellant requested that his state sentences be ordered to run concurrently with 
his federal sentences as previously requested at his sentencing hearing.  The appellant also included certificates 
of completion for various programs, demonstrating his good behavior and personal 
development while incarcerated.  The 
district court denied the appellant's motion, without a hearing, noting that 
nothing in the record or the appellant's history justified a sentence 
modification.  This appeal 
followed.

 
 

STANDARD 
OF REVIEW

 
 
[¶6]      We have stated 
that the language of W.R.Cr.P. 35(b) is discretionary.  Hodgins v. State, 1 P.3d 1259, 1261 
(Wyo. 2000).  "The district court 
has broad discretion in determining whether to reduce a defendant's sentence, 
and we will not disturb its determination absent an abuse of discretion."  McFarlane v. State, 781 P.2d 931, 932 
(Wyo. 1989) (citing Mower v. State, 
750 P.2d 679, 680 (Wyo. 1988)).  
"Judicial discretion is a composite of many things, among which are 
conclusions drawn from objective criteria; it means a sound judgment exercised 
with regard to what is right under the circumstances and without doing so 
arbitrarily or capriciously.'"  Hodgins, 1 P.3d  at 1261 (quoting Vaughn v. State, 962 P.2d 149, 151 (Wyo. 
1998)).  

 
 
DISCUSSION

 
 
[¶7]      The appellant 
makes two arguments to support his claim that the district court improperly 
denied his W.R.Cr.P. 35(b) motion.  
First, he argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying 
his motion because at his sentencing hearing the district court stated that it 
did not have a problem with his state sentences running concurrently with his 
impending federal sentences.  
Second, the appellant argues that the district court abused its 
discretion in denying his W.R.Cr.P. 35(b) motion because the good behavior he 
exhibited while he had been incarcerated justified a sentence 
reduction.

 
 
[¶8]      Although it 
appears that the district court was amenable to the appellant's request that his 
state sentences run concurrently with his impending federal sentences, the 
district court never explicitly ordered that, nor could it.  We have stated that 

 
 
[i]f 
a defendant is subject to prosecution in more than one court, the decision 
regarding how the sentences will run with respect to one another should be made 
by the last judge to impose a sentence.  
The underlying rationale for this theory is that a judge cannot require a 
sentence to be served consecutively to a sentence that has not yet been 
imposed.

 
 

Segnitz 
v. State, 
7 P.3d 49, 52 (Wyo. 2000).  
Moreover, a state district court cannot bind a federal court with such 
sentencing restrictions.  Bloomgren v. Belaski, 948 F.2d 688, 691 
(10th Cir. 1991) (holding that a "determination by federal authorities that [the 
appellant's] federal sentence would run consecutively to his state sentence is a 
federal matter which cannot be overridden by a state court provision for 
concurrent sentencing on a subsequently-obtained state conviction"); see also Goode v. McCune, 543 F.2d 751, 
753 (10th Cir. 1976) (stating that the appellant "owed a debt to two separate 
sovereigns, each of which had a right to exact its debt independently of the 
other").  A state district court 
that intends for a state sentence to run concurrently with an impending federal 
sentence can only make a recommendation to that effect, but cannot mandate 
it.  Del Guzzi v. United States, 980 F.2d 1269, 1272 (9th Cir. 1992) (Norris, J., concurring) (noting that "concurrent 
sentences imposed by state judges are nothing more than recommendations to 
federal officials").  We find that 
the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to order the 
sentences to run concurrently. 

 
 
[¶9]      With regard to 
the appellant's claim that his good behavior justified a sentence reduction, it 
is clear from the record that the district court considered not only the 
appellant's W.R.Cr.P. 35(b) motion, which included the certificates and 
documentation of the self-improvement courses, but it also considered additional 
material, such as the appellant's Presentence Investigation Report.  After considering everything as a whole, 
the district court denied the appellant's motion.  While it is commendable that the 
appellant has chosen to turn his life around and take a proactive role in 
completing self-improvement courses while he has been incarcerated, those facts 
alone do not require the district court to grant the appellant's W.R.Cr.P. 35(b) 
motion.  Hodgins, 1 P.3d  at 1261-62 (citing Carrillo v. State, 895 P.2d 463, 464 
(Wyo. 1995)).  Nor do those facts 
alone provide grounds for us to find that the district court abused its 
discretion in denying the appellant's motion.  Carrillo, 895 P.2d  at 464 (noting that 
this Court "would be usurping the function of the trial court if we were to hold 
that it is an abuse of discretion to deny a motion for sentence reduction only 
because of a prisoner's commendable conduct while incarcerated").  After reviewing the entire record and 
giving the required deference to the district court's determination, we cannot 
say that it abused its discretion. 

 
 
CONCLUSION

 
 
[¶10]   The state district court did not 
have authority to determine whether the appellant's state sentences were to run 
concurrently with or consecutive to the appellant's impending federal sentences. 
 The district court was not the last 
court to impose a sentence on the appellant.  Moreover, the district court properly 
denied the appellant's W.R.Cr.P. 35(b) motion because it was still without 
authority to issue an order that it could not have entered in the first 
instance.  Also, the district court 
was not required to grant the appellant's W.R.Cr.P. 35(b) motion simply because 
the appellant demonstrated commendable behavior and achievement while he had 
been incarcerated.  Thus, we cannot 
say that the district court abused its discretion in denying the appellant's 
W.R.Cr.P. 35(b) motion.  
Accordingly, we affirm.

  

FOOTNOTES

 
 

1As evidence that the 
federal officials are treating the sentences as consecutive and not concurrent, 
the appellant submitted a Detainer which was sent from the United States Marshal 
to the Wyoming State Penitentiary which states, "Life imprisonment consecutive 
to State of Wyoming."

 
 

2The record reflects that 
the appellant actually filed two separate motions with the district court 
pursuant to W.R.Cr.P. 35(b), one pro 
se and the other filed by his attorney.  Although both motions were included in 
the record on appeal, it appears that the appellant only appealed from the 
denial of the pro se motion.  Both motions essentially request the 
same relief, that the appellant's state sentences be modified or amended to 
require the state sentences to run concurrently with the appellant's federal 
sentences.  Accordingly, our 
references to a motion for sentence reduction or a W.R.Cr.P. 35(b) motion will 
refer to the appellant's pro se 
motion.