Title: Cardenas v. State

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

Cardenas v. State1996 WY 141925 P.2d 239Case Number: 96-121Decided: 10/17/1996Supreme Court of Wyoming
Thomas J. CARDENAS,

Appellant 
(Defendant),

v.

The STATE of 
Wyoming,

 Appellee 
(Plaintiff).

Appeal from District 
Court, Natrona County, Dan Spangler, J.

Thomas J. 
Cardenas, pro se.

William U. Hill, 
Attorney General; Paul S. Rehurek, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, 
Sr. Assistant Attorney General; Mark T. Moran, Assistant Attorney General for 
appellee (plaintiff).

Before 
TAYLOR, C.J., and THOMAS, MACY, GOLDEN and LEHMAN, JJ.

GOLDEN, 
Justice.

[¶1]      Appellant Thomas 
J. Cardenas appeals the denial of his motion to correct or vacate an illegal 
sentence under WYO.R.CRIM.P. 35(a). We affirm.

[¶2]      Cardenas presents 
these issues for our review:

I.          
This Court committed error in a prior appeal regarding the issues in this 
case that are to (sic) fundamental to ignore in that the result now introduced 
into the product of preliminary hearings, preclusively mandates rights which 
counsel can demand to permit sufficiency of examination at the preliminary 
hearing; further this case establishes a due process rights at preliminary 
examination to develop not just discovery, but trial like 
deposition type evidence, which cannot stand as being 
constitutional.

II.          
Whether due process, confrontation of witnesses, underlying values of the 
hearsay rule fundamental fairness are violated by the admission at trial of 
prior testimony of the victim given at a preliminary 
hearing.

III. Whether Appellant's 
constitutional rights were violated under state and federal law, and under the 
Constitution and the laws of the United States when prior case law restricted 
the motive and opportunity for cross-examination at the preliminary hearing; 
where applicable law has limited the time and the opportunity for investigation 
and discovery before the preliminary hearing; there was no indication that the 
witness would be unavailable for trial removing any incentive for a thorough 
cross-examination.

[¶3]      The State 
restates the issue as:

Whether the District 
Court correctly denied Appellant's motion to correct an illegal 
sentence.

FACTS

[¶4]      In 1989, Cardenas 
was convicted by a jury of attempted first degree sexual assault, aggravated 
assault and battery and interference with a police officer and sentenced to a 
term of not less than forty-five years nor more than fifty years for attempted 
first degree sexual assault, a minimum of eight years and a maximum of ten years 
for aggravated assault and battery and a maximum of six years for interference 
with a police officer. The district court ordered the sentences for attempted 
first degree sexual assault and aggravated assault to run concurrently and the 
sentence for interference with a police officer to run consecutively to the 
other two sentences.

[¶5]      One of the issues 
addressed by this Court in Cardenas' direct appeal from conviction concerned the 
use of the deceased victim's preliminary hearing testimony at trial. Cardenas v. 
State, 811 P.2d 989, 991-93 (1991). Cardenas' present motion to correct an 
illegal sentence again raises those issues which had been decided against him in 
the previous direct appeal from his conviction.

DISCUSSION

[¶6]      Cardenas attacks 
the use of a victim's preliminary hearing testimony at trial under a hearsay 
exception and does not challenge the sentence imposed. WYO.R.CRIM.P. 35 has the 
narrow function to permit correction at any time of an illegal sentence. The 
rule is not available to re-examine errors occurring at the trial or other 
proceedings prior to the imposition of the sentence. Ellett v. State, 883 P.2d 940, 942 (Wyo. 1994). An illegal sentence is a sentence which exceeds the 
statutory limits, a sentence which imposes multiple terms for the same offense, 
or a sentence whose terms violate a constitution or law. Ellett, 883 P.2d  at 
942.

[¶7]      The sentence 
imposed by the district court, although lengthy, fell within the terms 
prescribed by the legislature. Attempted sexual assault is a felony punishable 
by not less than five years nor more than fifty years, aggravated assault and 
battery is a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than ten years, and 
felony assault on a police officer is punishable by imprisonment for not more 
than ten years. WYO.STAT § 6-2-306 (Cum.Supp. 1996); WYO. STAT. § 6-2-502(b) 
(1988); WYO. STAT. § 6-5-204(b) (Cum.Supp. 1996). Additionally, the district 
court established a minimum and maximum term as required by WYO. STAT. § 
7-13-201 (1995).

[¶8]      A denial of a 
motion brought under Rule 35 is reviewed to determine whether the district court 
has abused its discretion. Ellett, 883 P.2d  at 942. The sentence in this case 
was not illegal. The error alleged by Cardenas, that pretrial and trial error 
occurred, is not a claim of an illegal sentence which can be addressed by a 
motion under this rule. The district court did not abuse its discretion by 
denying the motion.

[¶9]      
Affirmed.