Opinion ID: 2638107
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Merger of Sentences

Text: [¶ 13] Appellants argue their sentences were illegal because they were punished multiple times for the same conduct in violation of the constitutional proscriptions against double jeopardy. They do not challenge the validity of the underlying convictions, but argue the convictions should have merged for sentencing. Compare, DeSpain v. State, 865 P.2d 584 (Wyo.1993) (holding a double jeopardy challenge to multiple convictions for a single criminal event must be brought in a petition for post conviction relief pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 7-14-101, et seq. rather than in a motion to correct an illegal sentence under W.R.Cr.P. 35(a)), and Birr v. State, 878 P.2d 515 (Wyo.1994), upon rehearing, 895 P.2d 43 (Wyo.1995). [¶ 14] Before we address the merits of the appellants' arguments, we consider whether their claims are barred by res judicata. The preclusive doctrine of res judicata applies in the criminal context, as well as to civil matters. See, e.g., Beck v. State, 2005 WY 56, 110 P.3d 898 (Wyo.2005); Lacey, 2003 WY 148, 79 P.3d 493; Kallas v. State, 776 P.2d 198 (Wyo.1989). Our precedent is clear that the principle of res judicata may be applied to claims brought pursuant to W.R.Cr.P. 35(a). See, e.g., Hamill v. State, 948 P.2d 1356, 1358-59 (Wyo.1997). In Hamill, we rejected the appellant's argument that, because Rule 35 states that a motion to correct an illegal sentence may be brought at any time, it is not subject to bar under the doctrine of res judicata. Id. [¶ 15] Res judicata bars relitigation of issues raised and considered in a prior criminal proceeding. Lacey, ¶ 11, 79 P.3d at 495. Moreover, [i]t is a longstanding rule that issues which could have been raised in an earlier proceeding are foreclosed from subsequent consideration. Id. (emphasis added). It is, therefore, appropriate for us to consider application of the preclusive doctrine to appellants' Rule 35(a) claims that their sentences are illegal because their convictions should have merged for sentencing. [¶ 16] As we stated earlier, Mr. Gould pled guilty to aggravated assault and battery and burglary and was sentenced to consecutive terms for his actions. He initially filed a direct appeal, but voluntarily dismissed that appeal before any action was taken by this Court. He subsequently filed a motion for sentence reduction, asking the district court to reconsider its decision to impose consecutive sentences. The district court denied his motion, and he did not appeal that decision. Thus, Mr. Gould had the opportunity to argue his sentences should merge for purposes of sentencing in both his direct appeal and his 2002 motion to reduce his sentence, which he did not appeal. The judicial interests of finality in criminal cases demand disciplined application of the preclusive doctrine. See Nixon v. State, 2002 WY 118, 51 P.3d 851 (Wyo.2002) (providing a comprehensive discussion of the importance of finality in criminal cases). Consequently, we conclude Mr. Gould's merger issue is barred by res judicata. [¶ 17] Although the procedural history in Mr. Kolb's case differs from Mr. Gould's, the same underlying principles apply. Mr. Kolb was convicted after a jury trial of first degree murder and aggravated kidnapping. Kolb, 930 P.2d at 1239-40. He appealed and this Court affirmed. Id. Although he could have presented a claim that his sentences should have merged in his direct appeal, he did not do so. Under our precedent, it is clear Mr. Kolb had an obligation to present his claim that his convictions should have merged for sentencing in a timely fashion. Mead v. State, 2 P.3d 564 (Wyo.2000); See also, Hamill, 948 P.2d at 1359. Having failed to do so, he is barred from litigating that issue at this late date. [¶ 18] Further, although we are under no obligation to do so, we note the appellants' claims that their convictions should have merged for sentencing are not well-founded. Mr. Gould pled guilty to, and was convicted of, burglary for entering a home without authorization to demand sex from the female victim. He also pled guilty to, and was convicted of, aggravated assault and battery for the vicious beating which followed the victim's refusal to comply with his demands for sex. As is obvious from the quotation of the relevant statutes in footnotes 2 and 3 of this opinion, the elements of the two crimes are very different. Furthermore, under the rationale of cases like Owen v. State, 902 P.2d 190 (Wyo.1995) and Bilderback v. State, 13 P.3d 249, 254-55 (Wyo.2000), even a cursory review of the facts demonstrates Mr. Gould could have committed either of his crimes without necessarily committing the other. His convictions would not, therefore, merge for sentencing purposes. [¶ 19] Mr. Kolb was convicted of aggravated kidnapping and first degree pre-meditated murder. The elements of those crimes, as set out in footnotes 4 and 5 of this opinion, are very different and the legislative intent to punish them separately is obvious. Moreover, we concluded in Kolb, 930 P.2d at 1247, there was sufficient evidence to sustain Mr. Kolb's conviction for pre-meditated murder. It is evident from that conclusion that, although the crimes occurred during an on-going criminal episode, the kidnapping was not an essential component of the pre-meditated murder charge. Mr. Kolb's merger argument, therefore, also fails on its merits.