Home/Wyoming Supreme Court/Evans v. State

Evans v. State

892 P.2d 796, 1995 Wyo. LEXIS 55, 1995 WL 129206
Wyoming Supreme Court·Decided March 28, 1995·No. 94-193·Published·Cited by 14 cases

Opinions

GOLDEN, Chief Justice.

We review Appellant’s contention that the district court erred in denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence.

We affirm.

Appellant Evans submitted these issues:

I. Petitioner’s sentence under the habitual criminal statute is illegal.
II. There was insufficient evidence to convict petitioner as an habitual criminal beyond a reasonable doubt.
III. Evidence used in the habitual criminal phase was in violation of Appellant’s constitutional rights.
IV. Appellant’s Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination were violated in the habitual criminal case.
V. The prior convictions used in the habitual criminal sentence were invalid.
VI. Appellant was denied the effective assistance of counsel.

The state contends that Evans’ objections are without merit, but as its principal defense asserts that these issues may not be raised in the context of a motion to correct an illegal sentence.

By judgment and sentence entered on June 8, 1982, Evans was found guilty of first degree sexual assault. In addition, upon proof that he had been convicted of three other felonies, and in accordance with Wyo. Stat. § 6-1-110 (1977) 1 he was found guilty of being an habitual criminal and sentenced to a term of life imprisonment. That conviction was reviewed on appeal. Evans v. State, 655 P.2d 1214 (Wyo.1982). On March 15, 1994, Evans filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, pursuant to Wyo.R.Cr.P. 35(a). On June 13, 1994, that motion was amended to add additional issues. By order entered on June 22, 1994, the district court denied the motion.

A motion to correct an illegal sentence presupposes a valid conviction and may not be used to re-examine errors occurring at trial or other proceedings prior to the imposition of sentence. Therefore, issues concerning the validity of a conviction will not be addressed in the context of a Rule 35 motion. State v. Meier, 440 N.W.2d 700, 703 (N.D.1989); 3 CHARLES Alan Wright, Fedeeal PRACTICE and PROCEDURE: Criminal 2d § 582 (1982).

We presuppose, in accordance with the rules cited above, that the conviction in issue is valid. On its face, the sentence imposed is within the statutorily authorized limits and is otherwise consonant with governing law. All other matters raised by Evans in his brief are addressed to the validity of his conviction and we will not consider them in the context of this appeal.

The order of the district court denying the motion for correction of an illegal sentence is affirmed.

Footnotes

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Evans v. State, 892 P.2d 796, 1995 Wyo. LEXIS 55, 1995 WL 129206 (Wyo. 1995).

892 P.2d 796 (Evans v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

John Hiltner v. The State of Wyoming
2023 WY 82 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 2023)
State v. Evans, Jr.
Superior Court of Delaware, 2022
Joseph Newton Best v. The State of Wyoming
2022 WY 25 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 2022)
Hicks v. State
2018 WY 15 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 2018)
Charles Wayne Palmer, Jr. v. State
2016 WY 46 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 2016)
Sarr v. State
2007 WY 140 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 2007)
Bird v. State
2002 WY 14 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 2002)
Grinols v. State
10 P.3d 600 (Court of Appeals of Alaska, 2000)
Mead v. State
2 P.3d 564 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 2000)
Smith v. State
969 P.2d 1136 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1998)
Brittingham v. State
705 A.2d 577 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1998)
Duran v. State
949 P.2d 885 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1997)
Young v. State
904 P.2d 359 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1995)
Evans v. State
892 P.2d 796 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1995)