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

Heading: Transfer to Texas Detention Center

Text: [¶ 25] Appellants claim their sentences are illegal because the DOC transferred them to a facility in Texas to serve their terms of imprisonment. They submit a myriad of complaints about the transfer, including the contract between Wyoming and Texas violates Wyoming law, and, by transferring them to another jurisdiction, the State of Wyoming pardoned them. The threshold question, however, is whether a Rule 35 motion is the proper procedural mechanism to challenge the DOC's actions in executing their sentences. As we stated earlier in this opinion, an illegal sentence is one that exceeds statutory limits, imposes multiple terms of imprisonment for the same offense, or otherwise violates constitutions or the law. Brown, ¶ 7, 99 P.3d at 491. Our inquiry under Rule 35 focuses on the sentence itself, not upon the State's actions in executing the sentence. [¶ 26] A prisoner transfer does not work an increase in punishment or sentence. 72 C.J.S. Prisons § 128 (2006). Thus, cases which consider the propriety of a state's actions in executing a sentence are typically brought by means other than a motion to correct an illegal sentence. For example, in Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 103 S.Ct. 1741, 75 L.Ed.2d 813 (1983), an inmate challenged his transfer from one state to another to serve his sentence in a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Other cases concerning the transfer of prisoners between jurisdictions, including some cited by the appellants in support of their positions, Shields v. Beto, 370 F.2d 1003 (5th Cir.1967) and Thompson v. Bannan, 298 F.2d 611 (6th Cir.1962), are brought as habeas corpus petitions. Those procedures seem to be more appropriate for challenging executive branch transfer decisions. Because the appellants are not contesting the legality of their sentences, but only the way in which the DOC has executed them, this issue is not properly before us. [¶ 27] Appellants have not demonstrated the district courts abused their discretion by denying the appellants' motions to correct illegal sentences. Consequently, they are not entitled to appellate relief on this issue.