I disagree with the majority's conclusion regarding Johnson's motion to modify his sentence. Johnson asks that we remand for the trial court's consideration of his sentence-modification motion. The State does not disagree. The State further argues that denial of a liver transplant would not frustrate the purpose of the original sentence given that the trial court was aware of Johnson's serious condition and, in part for that reason, ordered only fifteen years of a potential forty-year sentence. The State, and now the majority, cut too fine a line.
Majority slip op.
Johnson contends, however, that despite that judicial assurance and despite his physician's recommendation, the prison doctor has refused to authorize a life-saving procedure. The State, the trial court, and the majority declare that Johnson's motion does not provide enough to gain a hearing. Johnson now says the department of corrections is denying him the medical attention required to save his life. I do not know whether Johnson's claim has merit. Without an evidentiary hearing, I can't know.