Opinion ID: 2672951
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Motion for Sentence Reduction

Text: [¶9] Motions to correct or reduce a sentence are governed by Rule 35 of the Wyoming Rules of Criminal Procedure, which provides: (a) Correction. -- The court may correct an illegal sentence at any time. Additionally the court may correct, reduce, or modify a sentence within the time and in the manner provided herein for the reduction of sentence. (b) Reduction. -- A motion to reduce a sentence may be made, or the court may reduce a sentence without motion, 2 within one year after the sentence is imposed or probation is revoked, or within one year after receipt by the court of a mandate issued upon affirmance of the judgment or dismissal of the appeal, or within one year after entry of any order or judgment of the Wyoming Supreme Court denying review of, or having the effect of upholding, a judgment of conviction or probation revocation. The court shall determine the motion within a reasonable time. Changing a sentence from a sentence of incarceration to a grant of probation shall constitute a permissible reduction of sentence under this subdivision. The court may determine the motion with or without a hearing. W.R.Cr.P. 35. [¶10] On November 17, 2011, the district court entered orders sentencing Hitz in accordance with the plea agreement by which Hitz pled guilty to felony escape and agreed to the revocation of his probation on his felony larceny conviction. Hitz did not appeal the sentencing orders. [¶11] On April 25, 2013, Hitz filed his motion for sentence reduction. Hitz’s motion was filed well after the one year time period allowed for a motion to reduce a sentence. This Court has held that “[i]f a motion to reduce a sentence is filed outside of the prescribed time limits, the district court is deprived of jurisdiction to hear the motion.” Tomlin v. State, 2001 WY 121, ¶ 6, 35 P.3d 1255, 1256 (Wyo. 2001) (citing Reese v. State, 910 P.2d 1347, 1348 (Wyo.1996)). We thus agree with the district court that it was without jurisdiction to consider Hitz’s motion for sentence reduction. [¶12] In an effort to avoid the time restrictions on a motion for sentence reduction, Hitz contends on appeal that his motion was intended to be a motion to correct an illegal sentence. The record does not support this argument. Hitz’s motion did not assert that the district court imposed an illegal sentence and was instead focused on the actions of the Wyoming Board of Parole. Moreover, through his motion, Hitz specifically requested a sentence reduction and cited “mitigating facts” to support the requested reduction, including his behavioral record while incarcerated, his institutional employment, his efforts at restitution, his enrollment in educational programs, and his completion of case plan requirements. The motion was presented as a motion for sentence reduction and not as a motion to correct an illegal sentence. [¶13] The district court correctly concluded that it was without jurisdiction to rule on Hitz’s motion for sentence reduction on the basis that the motion was filed outside the time limits prescribed by Rule 35(b). 3