Opinion ID: 1360502
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Life Sentences for Simple Burglary and Felony Escape

Text: The district court applied Wyoming's habitual criminal statute to enhance the sentences imposed. Under WYO.STAT. § 6-10-201(a)(i) and (ii) (1988), a defendant convicted of a violent felony is a habitual criminal if, on two or more previous but separate occasions, he has been convicted of felonies. The statute defines a violent felony as: murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, sexual assault in the first or second degree, robbery, aggravated assault, aircraft hijacking, arson in the first or second degree or aggravated burglary. WYO.STAT. § 6-1-104(a)(xii) (Supp. 1994). The initial charges against Rich included aggravated robbery and two counts of aggravated burglary. Wyoming's habitual criminal statute applies to these crimes. As the case approached arraignment, however, the prosecutor reduced the aggravated burglary charges to simple burglary and dropped the aggravated robbery charge altogether. As noted above, WYO.STAT. § 6-10-201 specifically allows an enhanced sentence for aggravated burglary, but does not for simple burglary. In the second set of charges, Rich pleaded guilty to felony escape, for which he also received a life sentence. WYO.STAT. § 6-1-104(a)(xiii) does not include felony escape as a violent felony. Therefore, the district court erred by imposing life sentences for those crimes under the habitual criminal statute. The state concedes this point. We hold the sentences imposed on the burglary and escape charges to be contrary to the governing statute. Rich still faces three consecutive life sentences, which this remand does not affect. Those sentences are final. Simonds v. State, 799 P.2d 1210 (Wyo.1990). Concurrent or consecutive treatment of the sentences, however, is still at issue. The district court originally ordered Rich to serve the burglary sentences concurrently with the sexual assault convictions. Therefore, we remand the improper sentences, and the issue of concurrent or consecutive treatment, to the district court for resentencing. The issue of concurrent or consecutive treatment is not present regarding the sentence for escape. Rich was to serve his two consecutive life sentences pertaining to the second set of convictions (sexual assault and escape) consecutively to all other convictions. Thus, the district court still has the option to make the escape conviction sentence consecutive to other sentences.