correct an illegal sentence. Hill, 368 U.S. at 430, 82 S.Ct. at 472. In Hill, the United States Supreme Court identified an illegal sentence as a sentence which is in excess of the relevant statutory provision; a sentence which violates double jeopardy provisions by imposing multiple terms for the same offense; or a sentence where the language of the sentence itself is legally or constitutionally invalid in some other respect. Hill, 368 U.S. at 430, 82 S.Ct. at 472. See also, 8A James W. Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶35.07[2] (2nd ed. 1991). The language of the former federal rule of criminal procedure at issue in Hill, was identical to the pertinent provision in W.R.Cr.P. 35(a). Hill, 368 U.S. at 430 n. 7, 82 S.Ct. at 472 n. 7. See Mehring v. State, 860 P.2d 1101, 1107 (Wyo.1993) (<HOLDING>). Recently, however, in DeSpain v. State, 865
recognizing that in adopting rules which are substantially similar to the federal rules of criminal procedure this court has traditionally given great weight to relevant precedent from federal courts particularly the supreme court of the united states holding that a federal court with diversity jurisdiction must apply the choiceoflaw rules of the state in which the federal court sits holding that our courts are bound by the united states supreme courts interpretation of the federal constitution recognizing privilege under federal rules holding that the federal expert witness compensation rules are in direct conflict with the state rules even when the state rules allow for a greater recovery