Opinion ID: 1941333
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Motion to Correct an Illegal Sentence [15]

Text: Finally, defendant contends on appeal that the trial justice erred in denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence because, as defendant's brief contends, the mandatory life sentence imposed    may have been predicated on jury findings, which as a matter of law, support only the lesser offense of murder in the second degree. We note that this argument, which in essence questions the evidentiary basis for the jury verdict that was actually rendered, is not appropriately made in the context of a motion to correct an illegal sentence under Rule 35. While Rule 35 authorizes the correction of an illegal sentence at any time, it is important to bear in mind that an illegal sentence has been judicially defined as one that is not authorized by the statute establishing the punishment that may be imposed for the particular crime or crimes. [16] See, e.g., State v. Murray, 788 A.2d 1154, 1155 (R.I.2001) (mem.). On appeal, the defendant had the burden of establishing that his life sentence for first-degree murder was not authorized by § 11-23-2. See Murray, 788 A.2d at 1155; State v. Furtado, 774 A.2d 38, 39 (R.I.2001). Pursuant to that statute, however, the only sentence permitted following a conviction for first-degree murder is life imprisonment; a trial justice in such a situation has absolutely no discretion with respect to the sentence since the statute proscribes that [e]very person guilty of murder in the first degree shall be imprisoned for life. (Emphasis added.) In light of this mandatory statutory language, we conclude that the defendant has utterly failed to establish that the imposition of a life sentence was improper in the instant case. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence.