State v. Ward

Syllabus

The defendant, who had been convicted, on pleas of guilty, of the crimes of manslaughter in the first degree and assault in the first degree in connection with an incident that occurred at a motel, appealed to this court from the trial court's denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. The defendant had a long history of untreated mental health issues for which he began treatment after his arrest. After the court canvassed the defendant, the court accepted his pleas of guilty and sentenced him to a total effective sentence of twenty-five years of incar- ceration. Thereafter, the defendant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, claiming, inter alia, that he was incompetent at the time of his sentencing hearing and, therefore, that his sentence was imposed in an illegal manner. On appeal to this court, the defendant claimed that the trial court improperly dismissed his motion to correct illegal sentence for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Held: 1. The defendant could not prevail on his unpreserved claim that his due process rights, under the federal constitution, were violated when the trial court failed to refer his motion to correct to the sentencing judge, whom the defendant claimed was familiar with the defendant and his mental health issues, and was better situated to consider the issues raised in the motion to correct; this court previously has determined that due process does not require the sentencing court to hear and adjudicate a defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence or a sentence imposed in an illegal manner, there was no appellate authority in support of the defendant's claim, and due process, which seeks to assure a defendant a fair trial, not a perfect one, does not mandate that a motion to correct an illegal sentence or a sentence imposed in an illegal matter be heard by the judge whom the defendant preferred or who had the greatest familiarity with the defendant. 2. The trial court did not err in dismissing the motion