Court Opinion

ID: 9688415
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 17:46:31.062135+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:38.507452
License: Public Domain

VERNON R. PEDERSON, Surrogate Justice,
concurring in the results.
The pertinent words in Rule 35(b) NDRCrimP are: “The sentencing court may reduce a sentence within 120 days after the sentence is imposed or probation is revoked, or within 120 days after receipt by that court of a mandate issued upon affirmance of the judgment or dismissal of *449the appeal, or within 120 days after entry of any order or judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States denying review of, or having the effect of upholding a judgment of conviction or probation revocation.”
By an order dated February 22,1988, the United States Supreme Court denied Jensen’s petition for a writ of certiorari.
On April 13, 1988, the trial court denied Jensen’s petition for a reduction of sentence because “The Petition is, on its face, untimely and without merit.”
In my opinion, the language of the rule is clear, the petition was not untimely. The trial court found the petition to be “without merit,” and it is not incumbent upon the trial court to state its reason for denying a motion for reduction of sentence. Rule 35 explanatory note. For this reason, the order is appropriately affirmed.
This rule aught not allow a reduction in sentence over twelve years after sentence was imposed, and should be amended to reflect the intent to establish “clear lines of demarcation so that all concerned would know exactly when the time for filing would expire,” as pointed out by the Chief Justice.