Title: GORDON J. CUBBA V. THE STATE OF WYOMING

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

GORDON J. CUBBA V. THE STATE OF WYOMING2009 WY 87210 P.3d 1086Case Number: S-08-0244Decided: 07/07/2009
APRIL 
TERM, A.D. 2009

 
 
GORDON 
J. CUBBA,

 
 
Appellant

(Defendant),

 
 
v.

 
 
THE 
STATE OF WYOMING,

 
 
Appellee

(Plaintiff).

 
 
Appeal 
from the District Court of Laramie County

The 
Honorable Peter G. Arnold, Judge

 
 
Representing 
Appellant:

            
Ronald 
G. Pretty, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

 
 
Representing 
Appellee:

Bruce 
A. Salzburg, Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney General; D. 
Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Leda M. Pojman, Assistant 
Attorney General.

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

 
 
BURKE, 
Justice.

 
 

[¶1]        
Gordon 
Cubba appeals the district court's denial of his motion to correct a clerical 
error in his Judgment and Sentence.  
He contends that the Judgment and Sentence erroneously states that his 
sentences were to be consecutive rather than concurrent.  We affirm.

ISSUE

[¶2]        
Did 
Mr. Cubba establish that, at the sentencing hearing, the district court 
unambiguously imposed concurrent sentences?

FACTS

[¶3]        
In 
October 2004, Mr. Cubba, in two separate cases, was charged with felony 
destruction of property and possession of marijuana with intent to deliver. 
 The cases were consolidated.  In January 2005, pursuant to a plea 
agreement, Mr. Cubba entered a guilty plea in both cases.  No written agreement appears in the 
record.  Mr. Cubba's counsel, at the 
change of plea hearing, set forth the terms of the agreement as 
follows:

The 
Court: What is the agreement?

[Defense 
Counsel]: Pursuant to a plea agreement, he'll plead guilty to the charge of 
property destruction.  The district 
attorney will be recommending a two-to-four-year sentence with a boot camp 
recommendation.  There is 
restitution in that matter of $2,675.

He 
will additionally be pleading guilty to possession with intent to deliver.  The district attorney will recommend a 
three-to-five-year sentence, suspended, consecutive to the two-to-four-year 
sentence with a boot camp recommendation, probationary period to be three 
years.

(Emphasis 
added.)

[¶4]        
Mr. 
Cubba was sentenced on April 4, 2005.  
The court permitted defense counsel to make the first 
statement:

[Defense 
Counsel]: We're here on a sentencing on Mr. Cubba.  My client entered a guilty plea to two 
charges, one of property destruction and one a possession with intent to 
deliver.  The sentence to be 
recommended by the district attorney's office was a two-to-four sentence with 
boot camp for the property destruction case and then a three-to five-year 
suspended sentence consecutive to 
that first sentence.  There also is 
restitution in this matter which was joint and several with another 
codefendant.

(Emphasis 
added.)  Following defense counsel's 
presentation, the district court afforded Mr. Cubba the opportunity to make a 
statement.  Mr. Cubba did not take 
exception to the stated terms of the plea agreement other than to request that 
he be placed on Intensive Supervised Probation or referred to Frontier 
Correctional Systems, rather than boot camp.  After Mr. Cubba concluded, defense 
counsel stated, "I believe the State is sticking with their recommendation at 
this point," and the prosecutor responded, "We are, Your Honor."  The district court then stated its 
intent to sentence Mr. Cubba in conformance with the plea agreement: "I'm going 
to ratify and concur with the plea agreement reached by the parties in this 
case.  The boot camp will be 
ordered, included in that order."

[¶5]        
At 
the conclusion of the sentencing proceeding, the following exchange 
occurred:

The 
Court: Anything else?

[Prosecutor]: 
Just for clarification, our plea agreement was the guilty pleas are running 
concurrent.  I believe [Defense 
Counsel] mentioned they are consecutive.  
I believe they are concurrent.

[Defense 
Counsel]: Okay.

The 
Court: That will be concurrent.  
Anything further?

[Defense 
Counsel]: Nothing further, Your Honor.  
Thank you.

The 
Court: Thank you, Mr. Cubba.

[¶6]        
On 
the same day as the sentencing hearing, the district court entered a Minute Order.  That order stated: "Property Destruction: 
sentenced to 2-4 yrs. in the WY State Pen., to complete the Boot Camp 
Program.  Poss. w/ intent to 
Deliver: sentenced to 3-5 yrs. in the WY State Pen., suspended to run consecutive to Prop. Dest. Charge."  (Emphasis added.)  The district court subsequently entered a 
Judgment and Sentence in each case.  The Judgment in Docket 28-375 specified 
that the sentence "shall be served consecutive with Docket 28-401 [the property 
destruction charge]."  Mr. Cubba did 
not file an appeal in either case.

[¶7]        
Three 
years later, Mr. Cubba filed a Motion to 
be Discharged from Probation and to Correct Clerical Mistakes in both cases. 
 He contended that there was a 
clerical error in the Judgment and Sentence and that it should be corrected to 
reflect that the sentences were to be served concurrently.  The State resisted the motion and, in 
support of its position, submitted an affidavit from the former Assistant 
District Attorney who represented the State during the sentencing hearing.  She stated, in pertinent 
part:

When 
I represented the State for the Gordon Cubba case I was a brand new felony 
attorney.  If it was not my first 
felony case, it was not far from it.  
The agreement between the State and the Defendant was that the sentences 
should run consecutive to each other. . . . I used the incorrect terminology at 
the Sentencing proceeding on April 4, 2005 when I informed the [district] Court 
that the sentences would be concurrent.  
The agreement stated by defense counsel was correct, and the sentences 
were to run consecutively. 

After 
a hearing, the district court denied the motion.  Mr. Cubba appeals.1

DISCUSSION

[¶8]        
Mr. 
Cubba does not contend that the plea agreement required imposition of concurrent 
sentences or that he entered into the plea agreement because the State had 
agreed to recommend concurrent sentences.  
He contends only that the district court, in its oral statement of the 
sentence, unambiguously imposed concurrent sentences.  The State disputes Mr. Cubba's claim that 
the district court unambiguously ordered concurrent sentences at the sentencing 
hearing.  The State contends that 
the district court intended to, and did, impose consecutive sentences.  According to the State, the Judgment and 
Sentence accurately reflects the sentence that the court 
imposed.

[¶9]        
A 
clerical mistake in a judgment may be corrected at any time.  W.R.Cr.P. 36.  An unambiguous oral sentence controls 
over a written judgment and sentence that conflicts with the court's oral 
pronouncement.  E.g., Christensen v. State, 854 P.2d 675, 678 
(Wyo. 1993).  A trial court has a 
duty to correct a written judgment to accurately reflect the sentence 
imposed.  Lane v. State, 663 P.2d 175, 176 (Wyo. 
1983).  For Mr. Cubba to prevail in 
this case, he must establish that the district court unambiguously imposed 
concurrent sentences at the sentencing hearing.  He must prove that the written Judgment 
and Sentence, as entered, differs from the sentence orally imposed by the 
district court.  He has failed to 
carry that burden.

[¶10]     
The 
record clearly illustrates ambiguity in the court's oral sentence.  When explaining the plea agreementin 
the change of plea and sentencing hearingsdefense counsel specifically stated 
that Mr. Cubba's sentences were to be served consecutively.  Initially, the district court sentenced 
Mr. Cubba in accordance with that agreement.  This indicates that the court intended a 
consecutive sentence.  On the other 
hand, the exchange between the parties and the court at the end of the hearing 
suggests that the sentences were to be concurrent.  At best, Mr. Cubba has demonstrated that 
the court made two statements, one reflecting an intent to impose consecutive 
sentences and the other suggesting an intent to impose concurrent 
sentences.  When the record is 
reviewed in its entirety, Mr. Cubba has not established that the district court 
unambiguously imposed concurrent sentences.  We find no error in the district court's 
denial of Mr. Cubba's motion.

[¶11]     
Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1Mr. 
Cubba appealed in both his property destruction case and his possession 
case.  He does not, however, request 
that the Judgment and Sentence in the property destruction case be corrected or 
altered in any way.  Consequently, 
we limit our discussion to the sentence ordered in the possession 
case.