Appeal from the District Court of Carbon County, The Honorable Wade E. Waldrip, Judge.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hill, Justice.
Before VOIGT, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, and BURKE, JJ., and JAMES, D.J.
[¶1] In 2002, Timothy Moore (Appellant) was convicted of four felonies. Three of his felony sentences were ordered to be served concurrently with each other. These three concurrent sentences were ordered to be served consecutively to the fourth felony sentence. In 2004, the district court granted a sentence reduction. It is Appellant‟s contention here that, as a result of the sentence reduction, all four sentences are now concurrent. The district court has repeatedly rejected Appellant‟s claims in this regard. In this appeal, we will affirm the district court‟s Order Clarifying July 12, 2005 Order Denying Sentence Modification.
[¶2] In his pro se brief, Appellant does not provide a statement of the issues presented for review, as required by W.R.A.P. 7.01(d). However, he makes these three arguments:
1. The March 12, 2004 Order required all of Appellant‟s sentences to run concurrently.
2. [The district court‟s] Order Clarifying July 12, 2005 Order Denying Sentence Modification rendered [the 2004] Order Granting Appellant‟s Motion for Sentence Modification an absurdity and without effect.
3. The language of the July 12, 2005 Order Denying Sentence Modification compelled Appellant to submit the Motion to Clarify and Complete the July 12, 2005 Order.
[¶3]In 2002, a Carbon County jury found Appellant guilty of two misdemeanors*fn1 and the following four felonies: aggravated burglary, blackmail, and two counts of kidnapping. The details of those crimes are set out in Moore v. State, 2003 WY 153, 80 P.3d 191 (Wyo. 2003). The district court imposed the following felony sentences:
Count I Aggravated burglary 5-10 years Count IV Kidnapping 5-10 years Count V Kidnapping 5-10 years Count VI Blackmail 2-5 years
The district court ordered that the sentences for Counts IV, V, and VI be served concurrently with each other, but consecutively to the sentence for Count I. This Court affirmed the convictions in Moore, with mandate issuing on December 11, 2003.
[¶4] On February 23, 2004, Appellant filed a motion for sentence reduction pursuant to W.R.Cr.P. 35(b).*fn2 In that motion, Appellant requested that "his sentence be modified so that all of his sentences run concurrently." On March 12, 2004, without holding a hearing, the district court ...