Opinion ID: 2823798
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Crim. P. 35(b) Authorizes the Resentencing Court to Reconsider Count IIâs Sentence

Text: Â¶35Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Hunsaker asserts that when Crim. P. 35(a) requires a court to resentence a defendant on one count with an illegal sentence, Crim. P. 35(b) authorizes the court to also reconsider and reduce a legal sentence imposed on another count. The prosecution objects and maintains that a court may not consider a Rule 35(b) motion contemporaneously with a Rule 35(a) motion. Both arguments have merit. Â¶36Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Crim. P. 35(b) permits a court to reduce a sentence within 126 days 6 after: (1) the sentence is imposed; (2) the court has received a remittitur affirming the judgment or sentence or dismissing the appeal; or (3) the appellate court has entered any order or judgment denying review or upholding the judgment of conviction or sentence. 7 InÂ Delgado, we held that Crim. P. 35(b) permits a sentencing court to modify a corrected sentence âwhen any portion of the original sentence did not fully comply with statutory requirements and a motion for reduction of sentence has been filed within 120 days of the new, legal sentenceâs imposition.â 105 P.3d at 636 (emphasis added). That is, a Rule 35(b) motion is not appropriate, and the 126-day clock does not begin running, until the court first determines the sentence is legal or imposes a legal sentence. In other words, a Rule 35(b) motion presumes a legal sentence. Â¶37Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Where a defendant files a motion under Crim. P. 35(a) and an alternative motion under Crim. P. 35(b) and the court grants the Rule 35(a) motion because the sentence contains an illegal component, the Rule 35(b) motion is rendered premature. But Delgado and Crim. P. 35(b) make clear that a defendant may renew the motion within 126 days of the courtâs order correcting the sentence or the court may, within the 126-day timeframe, reconsider and reduce the entire sentence on its own initiative. Â¶38Â Â Â Â Â Â Â We hold that if a sentence is subject to correction on one count under Crim. P. 35(a), Crim. P. 35(b) authorizes a resentencing court to reconsider and reduce the legal sentences as to all counts once it has corrected the entire sentence. Therefore, although the post-conviction court here could have, on its own initiative, considered Hunsakerâs Rule 35(b) motion after it corrected his sentence, it was not required to do so. At theÂ same time though, the appeals that followed in this case suspended the finality of Hunsakerâs sentence. Thus, within 126 days of the issuance of the mandate, Hunsaker may renew his Rule 35(b) motion or the post-conviction court may reduce count IIâs sentence on its own initiative.