Barrowes v. State

432 P.3d 1261 (Wyo. 2019) · Supreme Court of Wyoming · January 18, 2019

Summary

The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Edward Barrowes's W.R.Cr.P. 35(b) motion for sentence reduction following his conviction for aggravated vehicular homicide. The court held that the district court had a rational basis for denying sentence reduction and that Barrowes's Eighth Amendment challenge was procedurally barred because it was not raised in the district court or on direct appeal.

Court
Supreme Court of Wyoming
Writing for the Court
Davis, Chief Justice
Jurisdiction
Wyoming
Decision date
January 18, 2019
Procedural posture
Appeal from the denial of a timely Wyoming Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b) motion for sentence reduction.
Standard of review
A district court's ruling on a Rule 35(b) motion for sentence reduction is reviewed for abuse of discretion. The sentencing court has broad discretion, and the appellate court asks whether there was a rational basis for the decision rather than reweighing the propriety of the sentence.
Precedential value
Published opinion; precedential
Parties
Edward Barrowes v. State of Wyoming
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

sentence modificationsentencingcruel and unusual punishmentpreservation of errorappellate procedure

Practice areas

criminal proceduresentencingpost-conviction reliefappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Barrowes's Rule 35(b) motion for sentence reduction.
  2. Whether Barrowes's sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.

Holdings

  1. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion because it had a rational basis for maintaining the original sentence and Barrowes offered no new information requiring a different balancing of mitigating and aggravating factors.
  2. The Eighth Amendment challenge was procedurally barred because Barrowes did not raise it in the district court and could have raised and litigated the legality of his sentence in his prior direct appeal.

Key quotations

The question in sentencing was one of balancing mitigating and aggravating factors, and the question on a motion for sentence reduction is whether the defendant offered the sentencing court a reason or reasons for altering its original balancing decision. (432 P.3d at 1267)
Because his Eighth Amendment claim could have been raised and determined in his earlier appeal, it is now barred. (432 P.3d at 1268)

Factual background

Barrowes, a commercial truck driver, drove a tractor-trailer while drowsy after a long trip and periods of inadequate rest. His truck swerved for several miles before striking a properly parked tractor-trailer on Interstate 80, killing Aleksandr Kozak and seriously injuring Barrowes's co-driver. Barrowes acknowledged after the crash that he had fallen asleep at the wheel and had failed to manage his drowsiness appropriately. At sentencing, the district court considered mitigating circumstances but found substantial aggravating factors, including the prolonged reckless driving, missed opportunities to exit or stop, and Barrowes's lack of accountability and remorse.

Procedural history

Barrowes was convicted of aggravated vehicular homicide and sentenced to fourteen to eighteen years in prison. The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed his conviction on direct appeal. He then filed a Rule 35(b) motion for sentence reduction, which the district court denied without a hearing, and he appealed that denial. The Supreme Court affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…