Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County The Honorable Thomas T.C. Campbell, Judge
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Burke, Justice.
Before KITE, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, VOIGT, and BURKE, 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.
[¶1] Appellant, Steven A. DeLoge, pled guilty to six counts of second-degree sexual assault in 2000 and was sentenced to six consecutive life terms. In this appeal, Appellant, acting pro se, challenges the district court's denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence under W.R.Cr.P. 35(a). We affirm.
[¶2] Appellant presents the following issues:
1. Whether the district court correctly concluded that the claims of illegal sentence were barred by the doctrine of res judicata?
2. Whether the district court correctly denied correction of factual inaccuracies in the pre-sentence investigation report?
3. Whether the applied sentencing enhancement provision of W.S. 6-2-306(b)(i) creates an illegal sentence by violating the Wyoming and United States Constitutions?
[¶3] Appellant was originally charged with eleven counts of second-degree sexual assault. He pled guilty to six of those counts and was sentenced to six consecutive life terms. Appellant took a direct appeal from his convictions, arguing, among other things, that the sexual assault sentencing statute, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-306, violated the double jeopardy clauses of the Wyoming and United States Constitutions because it imposed multiple punishments for the same crime. This Court affirmed his convictions in DeLoge v. State, 2002 WY 155, 55 P.3d 1233 (Wyo. 2002) (DeLoge I).
[¶4] In 2002, while his appeal was pending, Appellant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. He also filed a post-conviction motion seeking the return of seized property. We affirmed the district court's denial of Appellant's motion to withdraw his guilty pleas, finding no "manifest injustice," but remanded to the district court for a ruling on the merits of Appellant's motion for return of the seized property. DeLoge v. State, 2005 WY 152, 123 P.3d 573 (Wyo. 2005) (DeLoge II).
[¶5] In December, 2003, prior to our decision in DeLoge II, Appellant also filed a petition for post-conviction relief in district court. The court dismissed the petition. Subsequently, Appellant filed a petition for writ of review in this Court. We denied that petition. Appellant then filed a second petition for writ of review in this Court challenging the district court's dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. That petition was also denied. Id., ¶ 5, 123 P.3d at 574-75.
[¶6] In 2006, following remand, the district court denied Appellant's motion for return of the seized property. Appellant appealed that decision. We affirmed in part and reversed in part, finding that Appellant had no right to counsel in the proceeding, but that the district court could not deny Appellant's motion without evidence from the State to support the need for ...