MATTHEW C. KURTENBACH, Appellant (Defendant),
THE STATE OF WYOMING, Appellee (Plaintiff).
Appeal from the District Court of Weston County The Honorable Keith G. Kautz, Judge.
Representing Appellant: Matthew C. Kurtenbach, pro se.
Representing Appellee: Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; Theodore R. Racines, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Jeffrey S. Pope, Assistant Attorney General.
Before KITE, C.J., and HILL, VOIGT, BURKE, and DAVIS, JJ.
[¶1] The appellant, Matthew C. Kurtenbach, appeals the district court's denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. Finding that the appellant's claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata, we affirm the district court's order.
[¶2] Did the district court abuse its discretion when it denied the appellant's motion to correct an illegal sentence?
[¶3] The facts underlying the appellant's conviction and the issues regarding his subsequent difficulties in his incarceration have been discussed in detail in Kurtenbach v. State, 2008 WY 109, 192 P.3d 973 (Wyo. 2008) (Kurtenbach I) and Kurtenbach v. State, 2012 WY 162, 290 P.3d 1101 (Wyo. 2012) (Kurtenbach II), and will not be repeated for a third time here. Suffice it to say, the appellant's current appeal revolves around the facts from Kurtenbach II, wherein he claimed that he was not receiving proper credit against his Wyoming sentence while he was incarcerated in North and South Dakota. In a further attempt to remedy this grievance, he filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, which was denied by the district court.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[¶4] "We review a district court's decision to deny a motion to correct an illegal sentence for an abuse of discretion." Lunden v. State, 2013 WY 35, ¶ 6, 297 P.3d 121, 123 (Wyo. 2013). However, as discussed below, we will dispose of this appeal on other grounds.
[¶5] The appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion when it denied his motion to correct an illegal sentence. He claims that, because he has not received credit against his Wyoming sentence while serving a series of different sentences in North and South Dakota, his sentence is illegal. He argues that his sentence violates several portions of the United States Constitution, including the prohibition against double jeopardy, the due process clause, the supremacy clause, the full faith and credit clause, separation of powers, the equal protection clause, and the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. He also asserts that his sentence does not give him credit for time spent in "official detention, " that his Wyoming sentence is now consecutive to a sentence that did not exist at the time of his Wyoming ...