Court Opinion

ID: 9893518
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-27 15:12:50.520085+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:22.074616
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING

                                            2023 WY 103

                                                                  OCTOBER TERM, A.D. 2023

                                                                           October 27, 2023

 CARL WILLIAM PETERSON,

 Appellant
 (Defendant),

 v.                                                                    S-23-0131

 THE STATE OF WYOMING,

 Appellee
 (Plaintiff).

                      Appeal from the District Court of Campbell County
                         The Honorable Stuart S. Healy, III, Judge

Representing Appellant:
      Carl William Peterson, pro se.

Representing Appellee:
      Bridget Hill, Attorney General; Jenny L. Craig, Deputy Attorney General; Kristen
      R. Jones, Senior Assistant Attorney General; John J. Woykovsky, Senior Assistant
      Attorney General.

Before FOX, C.J., and KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, GRAY, and FENN, JJ.

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in Pacific Reporter Third. Readers are
requested to notify the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002, of
any typographical or other formal errors so that correction may be made before final publication in the
permanent volume.
FOX, Chief Justice.

[¶1] Carl William Peterson, appearing pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his
motion to correct an illegal sentence. We affirm.

                                          ISSUE

[¶2]   This appeal presents a single issue:

              Did the district court err in ruling that res judicata barred Mr.
              Peterson’s motion to correct an illegal sentence?

                                          FACTS

[¶3] In 2009, Mr. Peterson was convicted of second-degree sexual abuse of a minor and
soliciting a minor to engage in sexual relations. He was sentenced to a prison term of
eighteen to twenty years on the sexual abuse conviction and four to five years on the
solicitation conviction, to be served consecutively. He appealed, claiming ineffective
assistance of counsel, and we affirmed his conviction. Peterson v. State, 2012 WY 17, 270
P.3d 648 (Wyo. 2012). A year later, in 2013, he filed a motion for reduction of his sentence,
which the district court denied.

[¶4] In January 2023 Mr. Peterson filed a pro se W.R.Cr.P. 35(a) motion to correct an
illegal sentence. He claimed the acts underlying his conviction were one continuous act
and his consecutive sentences violated his right against double jeopardy. The district court
found Mr. Peterson did not raise his double jeopardy claim in his direct appeal or in his
prior motion concerning his sentence, and that he failed to show good cause for not raising
the claim in earlier proceedings. The court therefore ruled that res judicata barred Mr.
Peterson’s Rule 35(a) motion and denied it.

                                STANDARD OF REVIEW

[¶5] “We review the denial of a motion to correct an illegal sentence for an abuse of
discretion.” Veatch v. State, 2023 WY 79, ¶ 7, 533 P.3d 505, 507 (Wyo. 2023) (citing
Harrell v. State, 2022 WY 76, ¶ 5, 511 P.3d 466, 468 (Wyo. 2022)). “We review a district
court’s decision that a motion to correct an illegal sentence is barred by res judicata de
novo.” Cruzen v. State, 2023 WY 5, ¶ 11, 523 P.3d 301, 304 (Wyo. 2023) (citing Harrell,
2022 WY 76, ¶ 5, 511 P.3d at 468).

                                      DISCUSSION

[¶6] W.R.Cr.P. 35(a) authorizes a court to correct an illegal sentence at any time, but our
precedent is clear that such motions are subject to res judicata. Cruzen, 2023 WY 5, ¶ 13,

                                              1
523 P.3d at 304. “Under the doctrine of res judicata, ‘it is a longstanding rule that issues
which could have been raised in an earlier proceeding are foreclosed from subsequent
consideration.’” Id. (quoting Gould v. State, 2006 WY 157, ¶ 15, 151 P.3d 261, 266 (Wyo.
2006)). “The purposes of the res judicata doctrine are to promote judicial economy and
finality, prevent repetitive litigation, prevent inconsistent results, and increase certainty in
judgments.” Taulo-Millar v. Hognason, 2022 WY 8, ¶ 45, 501 P.3d 1274, 1287 (Wyo.
2022) (quoting McBride-Kramer v. Kramer, 2019 WY 10, ¶ 23, 433 P.3d 529, 535 (Wyo.
2019)). Application of res judicata is discretionary, and the bar will not apply if a defendant
shows good cause for his failure to raise the claim in prior proceedings. Hicks v. State,
2018 WY 15, ¶ 15, 409 P.3d 1256, 1259 (Wyo. 2018) (citing Goetzel v. State, 2017 WY
141, ¶ 10, 406 P.3d 310, 312 (Wyo. 2017)).

[¶7] The district court found Mr. Peterson could have raised the legality of his sentence
in his direct appeal or in the earlier proceeding concerning his sentence. It further found
that Mr. Peterson did not show cause for his failure to challenge the legality of his sentence
in the earlier proceedings, “and his failure to raise the issue on direct appeal would indicate
he cannot.” Mr. Peterson points to no error in this conclusion and argues only that under
Rule 35(a), an illegal sentence may be corrected at any time.

[¶8] As noted above, our precedent is clear that, despite the language of Rule 35(a), a
motion to correct an illegal sentence can be subject to res judicata. Cruzen, 2023 WY 5,
¶ 13, 523 P.3d at 304. Under these circumstances, where Mr. Peterson took a direct appeal
and filed an earlier motion concerning his sentence, and ten years later filed a motion to
correct an illegal sentence, the interests of res judicata in finality and avoiding repetitive
litigation are served by the bar’s application. We find no error in the district court’s ruling.

[¶9]   Affirmed.

                                               2