1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 38575

STATE OF IDAHO ,
Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.

KEVIN RAY PIRO ,
Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 303

Filed: January 3, 2012

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourt h Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Michael E. Wetherell , District Judge.

Order denying motion for correction of illegal sentence, affirmed

.
Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Spencer J. Hahn, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

H on. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respon dent.

________________________________________________ Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge; and GUTIERREZ, Judge

PER CURIAM

After Kevin Ray Piro was found guilty of burglary and rap e, the district court imposed a
unified life sentence with thirty years determinate for rape, and a consecutive unified sentence of
ten years with five years determinate for burglary. Piro then filed a timely Idaho Criminal

Rule 35 motion for reduction of his sentences, which the district court denied. This Court

affirmed Piro’s conviction and the denial of his Rule 35 motion. State v. Piro , 141 Idaho 543,

112 P.3d 831 (Ct. App. 2005). About six years later, Piro filed another Rule 35 motion in which

he sought correction of illegal sentence s , contending that his sentences constitute cruel and
unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
That motion was denied and Piro appeals.2 As the State argues, and as P iro acknowledges, his present assertion that his sentence s are illegal is barred by th e doctrine of res judicata. That doctrine prevents relitigation of issues that
have previously been decided in a final judgment or decision in an action between the same
parties. State v. Rhoades , 134 Idaho 862, 863, 11 P.3d 481, 482 (2000) ; State v. Beam , 115
Idaho 208, 210

- 11, 766 P.2d 678, 680

- 81 (1988) . Here, in Piro’s direct appeal this C ourt

determined that his sentences were not excessive under state law reasonab leness standards. Piro

, 141 Idaho at 546, 112 P.3d at 834. A cruel and unusual punishment claim presents a more

difficult standard for the defendant to meet than the state law reasonableness standard , and

therefore an affirmation of a sentence on a reaso nableness determination inherently indicates that

the sentence is not cruel and unusual. Knutsen v. State , 144 Idaho 433, 440, 163 P.3d 222, 229
(Ct. App. 2007). It follows that permitting Piro “to challenge the length of his . . . sentence on

cruel and unusual punishment grounds when an appellate court has already held on direct appeal
that the sentence is not unreasonable would allow [ him ] to raise the same issue previously ruled
upon.” Id. Consequently , Piro’s current challenge to his sentences

, as cruel and unusual
punishment

, is barred by the doctrine of res judicata , and the district court did not err in denying

Piro’s second Rule 35 motion.
The order of the district court denying Piro’s Rule 35 motion for correction of illegal

sentences is af firmed.