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2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 303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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 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 Fourth 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. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge;

and GUTIERREZ, Judge

PER CURIAM

After Kevin Ray Piro was found guilty of burglary and rape, 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 sentences, 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 Piro acknowledges, his present assertion that his sentences are

illegal is barred by the 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 Court 

determined that his sentences were not excessive under state law reasonableness 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 reasonableness 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 affirmed.