Pearson v. State
In Pearson v. State, 866 P.2d 1297 (Wyo. 1994), the defendant was on parole when he was convicted of a new crime. The sentencing court for the new crime was silent as to whether the new sentence should run consecutively to or concurrently with the parole sentence in the event parole was revoked.
The defendant filed a motion to correct the sentence claiming that his sentences should run concurrently.
His motion was denied and he appealed. Again this court held that "if no specification is made as to whether multiple sentences are concurrent or whether they are consecutive, the sentences will be deemed to be consecutive whether they are imposed in the same case, in different cases, or by different courts." Pearson, at 1299.