Stewart v. State

Wyoming Supreme Court

Stewart v. State

654 P.2d 727, 1982 Wyo. LEXIS 420

CourtWyoming Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 23, 1982

Docket5816

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 654 P.2d 727 (Stewart v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wyoming Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stewart v. State, 654 P.2d 727, 1982 Wyo. LEXIS 420 (Wyo. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

ROSE, Chief Justice.

This appeal was taken from the district court’s denial of a motion for sentence reduction styled as a “Motion For Jail Time,” and that motion, according to the record, was filed after the 120-day period provided for filing such a motion under Rule 36, W.R.Cr.P. The district court loses jurisdiction to reduce its sentence after 120 days following the date of the judgment and sentence. United States v. Hetrick, 644 F.2d 752 (9th Cir.1981); 3 Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure § 587. The motion was not timely and the district court was without jurisdiction to consider it. The motion could only be denied by the district court on the ground it had no jurisdiction. Since the district court had no jurisdiction, this court is without jurisdiction to consider the appeal. Hayes v. State, Wyo., 599 P.2d 569 (1979); Snell v. Ruppert, Wyo., 541 P.2d 1042 (1975).

It is, therefore

ORDERED that this appeal be, and is, dismissed.

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

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

ROSE, Chief Justice.

This appeal was taken from the district court’s denial of a motion for sentence reduction styled as a “Motion For Jail Time,” and that motion, according to the record, was filed after the 120-day period provided for filing such a motion under Rule 36, W.R.Cr.P. The district court loses jurisdiction to reduce its sentence after 120 days following the date of the judgment and sentence. United States v. Hetrick, 644 F.2d 752 (9th Cir.1981); 3 Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure § 587. The motion was not timely and the district court was without jurisdiction to consider it. The motion could only be denied by the district court on the ground it had no jurisdiction. Since the district court had no jurisdiction, this court is without jurisdiction to consider the appeal. Hayes v. State, Wyo., 599 P.2d 569 (1979); Snell v. Ruppert, Wyo., 541 P.2d 1042 (1975).

It is, therefore

ORDERED that this appeal be, and is, dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

654 P.2d 727, 1982 Wyo. LEXIS 420, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stewart-v-state-wyo-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack