In Hamill v. State, 948 P.2d 1356, 1358 (Wyo. 1997), the defendant did not raise the issue of his consolidated sentence when he appealed his 1979 conviction. Eleven years later, Mr. Hamill filed his first motion to correct an illegal sentence. Again, the motion contained no mention of his consolidated sentence. That motion was denied. Sixteen years after his conviction, he filed yet another motion to correct an illegal sentence, this time contending his sentence was illegally consolidated. Finding res judicata applied, the Court said: Hamill fails to articulate any reason why this issue was not raised in his earlier petitions regarding his sentencing . . . . Hamill makes no attempt to explain why he did not challenge his consolidated sentence in his petition filed in 1990. . Neither do the interests of justice require consideration of Hamill's claim. (Hamill, 948 P.2d at 1359.)