Title: ROBERT W. LEE V. THE STATE OF WYOMING

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

ROBERT W. LEE V. THE STATE OF WYOMING2007 WY 81157 P.3d 947Case Number: 06-116Decided: 05/14/2007
APRIL TERM, A.D. 2007

 
 
ROBERT 
W. LEE,

 
 
Appellant

(Defendant),

 
 
v.

 
 
THE STATE OFWYOMING,

 
 
Appellee

(Plaintiff).

 
 
Appeal 
from the DistrictCourtofNatronaCounty

 
 

Representing 
Appellant:

Robert 
W. Lee, Pro se.

 
 

Representing 
Appellee:

Patrick 
J. Crank, Wyoming Attorney General; Paul S. Rehurek, Deputy Attorney General; D. 
Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Leda M. Pojman, 
Assistant Attorney General.

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

 
 

VOIGT, 
C.J., 
delivers the opinion of the Court; HILL, 
J., files a specially concurring opinion.

 
 
VOIGT, 
Chief Justice.

 
 
[¶1]      Appellant, Robert 
W. Lee, filed a Request for Clarification of Sentence with the district court on 
March 14, 2006.  The district court 
entered an Order Denying Request for Clarification of Sentence on March 17, 
2006.  We conclude that the district 
court did not have jurisdiction to consider the Request for Clarification of 
Sentence, and therefore, we do not have jurisdiction to consider this 
appeal.

 
 
ISSUES

 
 
[¶2]      Did the district 
court have jurisdiction to consider a motion entitled "Request for Clarification 
of Sentence" filed more than seven years after entry of conviction and 
sentencing, where Appellant did not cite to any authority allowing the court 
continuing jurisdiction in the matter?

 
 
FACTS

 
 
[¶3]      The underlying 
facts of Appellant's conviction are not at issue here.  Appellant was convicted of four separate 
drug-related felonies under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 35-7-1031 (Michie Cum. Supp. 
1996).  He was sentenced to 30-60 
months on count I, to run concurrent with a sentence of 90-120 months on count 
II.  The 294 days Appellant had 
already been incarcerated at the time of his sentence were credited toward those 
concurrent sentences.  Appellant was 
also sentenced to 30-60 months on count III, to run concurrent with 72-120 
months on count IV.  The sentencing 
order stated "the concurrent sentences on Counts I, and II, or [sic] the charges 
herein shall run consecutive to the concurrent sentences on Counts III, and IV 
of the charges herein."  Appellant 
has brought various challenges to the construction and implementation of that 
sentence since his conviction.  We 
affirmed his conviction and sentence on direct appeal in Lee v. State, 2 P.3d 517 (Wyo. 
2000).  Appellant filed a Request 
for Clarification of Sentence with the district court on March 14, 2006.  The district court entered an Order 
Denying Request for Clarification of Sentence on March 17, 2006.  This appeal 
followed.

 
 
STANDARD 
OF REVIEW

 
 
[¶4]      The issue of 
subject matter jurisdiction is one that we review "de novo pursuant to the 'inherent power, 
and the duty, to address jurisdictional defects on appeal[.]'"  Sheridan Ret. Partners v. City of Sheridan, 950 P.2d 554, 556 (Wyo. 1997).  

 
 
DISCUSSION

 
 
[¶5]      Every court has 
the duty to ensure the proper exercise of its jurisdiction.  Estate of Fulmer v. First Wyoming Bank, 
Sheridan, 761 P.2d 658, 660 (Wyo. 1988).  The court must raise this issue sua sponte if the parties do not.  Id. If a trial court did not have 
jurisdiction to entertain an issue, this Court cannot have jurisdiction to 
decide a subsequent appeal on that issue.  
Id.  

 
 
[¶6]      Here, the trial 
court's jurisdiction terminated with the entry of the judgment and sentence in 
this case, and the final disposition of Appellant's direct appeal.  Nixon v. State, 2002 WY 118, ¶ 9, 51 P.3d 851, 854 (Wyo. 2002).  In the 
absence of a specific statute or court rule allowing the trial court continued 
jurisdiction, the court had no power to act further.  Id.  Appellant filed a document entitled 
"Request for Clarification of Sentence", a motion that does not appear in any 
rule of criminal procedure or substantive criminal statute.  Appellant did not provide citation to 
any rule or statute authorizing the district court to act on such a request more 
than seven years after his conviction and sentencing, nor can we find any rule 
or statute allowing it.  In fact, 
Appellant did not cite to any authority, jurisdictional or otherwise, in either 
his original submission to the district court, or his brief on appeal.  The record reflects that Appellant has 
previously filed a Motion for Reduction of Sentence, a Motion to Correct 
Clerical Errors, and a Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence, all of which are 
legitimate motions under the Wyoming Rules of Criminal Procedure.  However, the document before the 
district court in this instance is not a vehicle for any recognized legal remedy 
under those rules.  

 
 

CONCLUSION

 
 
[¶7]      We conclude that 
the district court was without jurisdiction to consider Appellant's "Request for 
Clarification of Sentence" and that, consequently, we are without jurisdiction 
to consider this appeal.  The appeal 
is dismissed.

 
 

HILL, 
Justice, 
specially concurring.

 
 
[¶8]      I file this 
special concurrence because I do not agree that this appeal should be 
dismissed.  It is in some respects, 
perhaps, a dissent, but if adopted, it would lead the Court to a very similar 
result.  It is my perception that 
the district court did have jurisdiction of Lee's motion, and we have 
jurisdiction of this appeal.  I 
conclude that the district court properly denied Lee's "Motion for Clarification 
of Sentence," and that the district court's appealable order should be 
affirmed.

 
 
[¶9]      W.R.Cr.P. 35 
provides that a district court may correct an illegal sentence "at any 
time."  W.R.Cr.P. 36 provides that 
[c]lerical mistakes in judgments, orders or other parts of the record and 
errors in the record arising from oversight or omission may be corrected by the 
court at any time and after such notice, if any, as the court orders."  Lee's motion properly invoked the 
district court's jurisdiction under one or both of the above-cited rules, but it 
failed to state any ground which would entitle Lee to relief.  Therefore, the district court's order 
should be affirmed.