Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

895 P.2d 463

Carrillo v. State

Wyoming Supreme Court

Decided May 18, 1995

Wyoming Supreme Court · decided 1995-05-18

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“would be usurping the function of the trial court if we were to hold that it is an abuse of discretion to deny a motion for sentence reduction only because of a prisoner's commendable conduct while incarcerated”

quoted by 1 later decision, including LeGARDA-CORNELIO v. State

Relies on McFarlane v. State · Montez v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1995-05-18

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently December 2022

9 state decisions

501995200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1 Appellant Ronald Carrillo seeks review of the district court’s order denying his motion for reduction of sentence.

¶2 We affirm.

¶3 On March 24,1994, Carrillo was sentenced to a term of two and one-half years to three years in the Wyoming State Penitentiary. Within the time allowed under Wyo. R.CRIM.P. 35 (1992), Carrillo filed a motion for reduction of that sentence. He supported his motion with data demonstrating that his conduct while incarcerated has been exemplary, including an “excellent” rating for his work assignment in the maximum-unit kitchen and certificates showing successful completion of substance abuse programs.

¶4 The district court has broad discretion in determining whether to reduce a sentence, and we will not disturb its decision, absent a clear abuse of discretion. McFarlane v. State, 781 P.2d 931, 932 (Wyo.1989). Carrillo’s efforts to serve his debt to society constructively are praiseworthy. However, we would be usurping the function of the trial court if we were to hold that it is an abuse of discretion to deny a motion for sentence reduction only because of a prisoner’s commendable conduct while incarcerated. Montez v. State, 592 P.2d 1153, 1154 (Wyo.1979).

¶5 The order of the district court is affirmed.

/895/p2d/463 · .json · Public domain