Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bird v. State

Supreme Court of Wyoming

August 17, 2015

CHESTER LOYDE BIRD, Appellant (Defendant),
v.
THE STATE OF WYOMING, Appellee (Plaintiff)

Page 265

Appeal from the District Court of Campbell County. The Honorable Thomas W. Rumpke, Judge.

CHESTER LOYDE BIRD, Appellant, Pro se.

For Appellee: Peter K. Michael, Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; Jenny L. Craig, Senior Assistant Attorney General.

Before BURKE, C.J., and HILL, KITE[*], DAVIS, and FOX, JJ.

OPINION

Page 266

BURKE, Chief Justice.

[¶1] Appellant, Chester Loyde Bird, pled guilty to kidnapping and first-degree sexual assault in 1994 while he was on parole for an unrelated crime, and he was sentenced to two concurrent 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.

ISSUES

[¶2] Appellant presents six issues, which we combine and restate as follows:

1. Whether Appellant's sentence is illegal due to the sentencing court's failure to state whether the sentence was to run concurrently or consecutively to the sentence re-imposed upon revocation of Appellant's parole.
2. Whether Appellant's sentence is illegal because he was not awarded sufficient credit for presentence confinement.
3. Whether the imposition of a $50.00 victim's compensation surcharge under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-40-119, due to Appellant's status as a habitual offender, violates constitutional prohibitions against double jeopardy and the enactment of ex post facto laws.
4. Whether Appellant's sentence is illegal due to the sentencing court's failure to inquire into Appellant's ability to pay before ordering a victim's compensation surcharge.
5. Whether the district court erred by failing to allow Appellant an opportunity to make a statement before issuing its order on the motion to correct illegal sentence.

The State presents two issues:

1. Are Appellant's current claims barred by the doctrine ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.