Defendant appealed the conviction, and this court affirmed from the bench. The state then moved to amend the judgment to add the omitted term of post-prison supervision that is required by law. Defendant opposed the motion arguing that the court lacked the authority to amend his sentence once it had been executed. The trial court concluded that the omission of the term of post-prison supervision was an error of law that required correction. On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred in concluding that it had authority to correct the judgment.
Defendant concedes that the sentence that the trial court originally imposed was legally incorrect.
According to defendant, the trial court has no authority to alter a sentence once it is executed. However, that is true only for sentences that are in accordance with the pertinent sentencing statutes. In Hamilton , the trial court initially imposed a sentence in accordance with Measure 11. Approximately four months after the defendant had begun serving his sentence, the trial court determined Measure 11 to be unconstitutional and resentenced the defendant under the pre-Measure 11 sentencing guidelines. The state appealed, and we reversed, stating that the trial court lost jurisdiction once the defendant began serving his sentence.