State v. Stephen Mattatall

Syllabus

The defendant, Stephen Mattatall, appealed from a judgment denying his motion to reduce or correct an illegal sentence under Rule 35 of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure. On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial justice erred in denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence, because, he argued, the sentence is illegal for the purposes of Rule 35(a) because the judgment of conviction entered did not conform to the oral sentence he was given and because the judgment of conviction imposed an unauthorized form of punishment. The Supreme Court held that the defendant's sentence was not an illegal sentence under Rule 35. However, based on the unique circumstances of this specific case, the Court also exercised its supervisory jurisdiction to afford the defendant the opportunity to seek relief from the trial justice. The Court ordered that, within 120 days of the issuance of the opinion, defendant could file a motion to reduce the sentence imposed as a habitual offender, in accordance with Rule 35 and the general laws, or its nonparolable portion. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court and remanded the case to the Superior Court.