Opinion ID: 1360502
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Life Sentences for Sexual Assault

Text: Rich contends the district court's imposition of four consecutive life sentences for these crimes is harsh and unfair. He argues that by pleading guilty to his crimes, he spared the victims and the State the necessity of going to trial. Rich argues that for this noble gesture the district court should have shown some leniency. A sentence, however, will not be set aside by this court if the sentence is within the legislative mandated minimum and maximum range. Eustice v. State, 871 P.2d 682, 684 (Wyo.1994). In Rich's case, there was no minimum sentence permitted with respect to his sexual assault convictions. A court has convicted Rich of felonies four times and the mandatory sentence is life for the instant violent felonies. WYO.STAT. § 6-10-201(b)(ii) (1988). This court has previously held that being a habitual criminal is not a crime; it is a status. Schuler v. State, 668 P.2d 1333, 1337 (Wyo.1983). To be a habitual criminal under the statute simply changes the sentencing process. Id. The sentence which the court could impose for the crime charged (if less than life imprisonment) is, by statute, enhanced to a mandatory life sentence. Id. Just as the trial court had no discretion to consider probation in Schuler, the district court has no discretion in sentencing Rich to life sentences for his fourth, fifth and sixth violent felony convictions. As noted in both Schuler and Evans v. State, 655 P.2d 1214 (Wyo.1982), courts can only impose sentences authorized by the legislature. As this court stated in Schuler, It is within the legislative prerogative thus to allow the trial judge discretion when a sentence is enhanced by § 6-1-109 [1] , and to remove it when the sentence is enhanced by virtue of § 6-1-110 [2] . Schuler, 668 P.2d at 1342. In addition, the State charged Rich with three separate first degree sexual assaults, which occurred on three separate and distinct occasions. They are violent felonies. The district court is well within its discretion to impose consecutive life sentences. Because the district court's sentences are not manifestly unfair or unjust, there is no abuse of discretion. In summary, we affirm the sentences imposed for the first degree sexual assaults. We remand the burglary and felony escape sentences to the district court for resentencing in light of this decision. In remanding, we observe that at resentencing the district court may impose maximum sentences of ten years each on the burglary convictions and a maximum sentence of ten years on the escape charge. The court must also consider the matter of concurrent or consecutive treatment. We remand both the sentences and the concurrent or consecutive treatment matters so that the court is given the opportunity to exercise its sentencing discretion in the fullest manner.