Candelario v. State

5 Citing cases

  1. Newnham v. State

    2021 WY 54 (Wyo. 2021)   Cited 6 times

    [¶3] Sentencing decisions are within the discretion of the trial court, except a court cannot impose an illegal sentence. Candelario v. State, 2016 WY 75, ¶ 5, 375 P.3d 1117, 1118 (Wyo. 2016) (citing Endris v. State, 2010 WY 73, ¶ 13, 233 P.3d 578, 581 (Wyo. 2010)). "A sentence is illegal if it violates the constitution or other law."

  2. Said v. State

    2024 WY 58 (Wyo. 2024)

    [¶13] "A sentence that does not include proper credit constitutes an illegal sentence." Newnham v. State, 2021 WY 54, ¶ 3, 484 P.3d 1275, 1276 (Wyo. 2021) (quoting Candelario v. State, 2016 WY 75, ¶ 6, 375 P.3d 1117, 1118 (Wyo. 2016)). "We review the denial of a motion to correct, reduce, or modify a sentence for an abuse of discretion.

  3. Stevenson v. State

    2023 WY 99 (Wyo. 2023)   Cited 1 times

    [¶13] A defendant is entitled to credit for "presentence confinement" pursuant to W.R.Cr.P. 32(c)(2)(E)-(F). "Presentence confinement" is defined as "incarceration for inability and failure to post bond on the offense for which the sentence is entered[.]" Sweets v. State, 2001 WY 126, ¶ 5, 36 P.3d 1130, 1131 (Wyo. 2001) (quoting Renfro v. State, 785 P.2d 491, 498 n.8 (Wyo. 1990)); see also Candelario v. State, 2016 WY 75, ¶ 6, 375 P.3d 1117, 1118 (Wyo. 2016). This rule is designed to avoid violating principles of constitutional equal protection when pre-sentence confinement occurs due to indigency.

  4. Cruzen v. State

    2023 WY 5 (Wyo. 2023)   Cited 7 times
    Reviewing W.R.Cr.P. 35 motion on its merits where res judicata applied to claim

    Newnham, ¶ 3, 484 P.3d at 1276 (quoting Candelario v. State, 2016 WY 75, ¶ 6, 375 P.3d 1117, 1118 (Wyo. 2016)). "Whether a sentence is illegal is a question of law that we review de novo."

  5. Nesius v. State

    2019 WY 129 (Wyo. 2019)   Cited 2 times

    Mr. Nesius' sentence for fleeing or attempting to elude police officers is illegal, and the district court's written sentence failed to clearly conform to its oral pronouncement and the law with respect to credit for time served. [¶19] Applying a de novo standard of review, Candelario v. State , 2016 WY 75, ¶ 5, 375 P.3d 1117, 1118 (Wyo. 2016), we agree with the parties that Mr. Nesius' sentence for fleeing or attempting to elude police officers under Wyoming Statute § 31-5-225(a) (Count V) is illegal because it exceeds the statutory maximum. We further conclude that the district court's written sentence failed to conform to its oral pronouncement with respect to credit for time served.