Court: North Dakota Supreme Court; July 12, 2012; North Dakota; State Supreme Court
Kenneth Eide appealed a district court order that denied his motion to correct illegal sentences under N.D.R.Crim. P. 35(a), following his discharge from civil commitment as a sexually dangerous individual and subsequent amendments to five criminal judgments on December 27, 2010. The court affirmed the denial regarding three judgments not amended on that date but reversed the amendment of the five judgments due to a lack of notice provided to Eide prior to modifying his probation. On January 3, 2011, at Eide's request, the court amended one of the three unchanged judgments to extend his probation for an additional five years. Eide's original guilty pleas included multiple counts of gross sexual imposition and attempted sexual assault, resulting in various prison sentences and concurrent probation terms. Civil commitment occurred in June 2006, and on December 27, 2010, the court discharged him from that commitment but modified his probation, effectively extending it beyond its original end date in June 2011 due to his civil commitment period. Eide later petitioned to extend his probation further, citing concerns about fulfilling financial obligations before the original probation ended, which the court granted, extending his probation for five more years.
In June 2011, Eide filed a motion to correct illegal sentences under N.D.R.Crim. P. 35(a), claiming the district court improperly amended his criminal judgments on December 27, 2010. The court amended five judgments in case numbers 34-01-K-00153 to 34-01-K-00157, but Eide's motion included additional case numbers that had been dismissed or involved expired sentences. The district court denied Eide's motion, asserting it intended for him to serve five years of supervised probation following his release and that the amendments did not increase his sentences. The State did not respond to Eide's motions. Eide timely appealed, arguing the district court overstepped its authority by amending judgments nine years post-judgment. Both parties agreed on the facts, with the appeal focusing on a legal question reviewed de novo. Eide contended that N.D.R.Crim. P. 35(a) allows for correction of illegal sentences at any time. However, Eide misrepresented the judgments amended in the December order, as the court only amended case numbers 34-01-K-00153 to 34-01-K-00157. The other judgments mentioned were not amended due to prior dismissals or expired sentences. Additionally, amendments to case number 34-01-K-00352 occurred on January 3, 2011, not December 27, 2010. Rule 35(a)(1) permits correction of illegal sentences, defined as those not authorized by the conviction judgment. Illegal sentences may arise from statutory violations, failure to adhere to plea agreements, or inconsistencies with oral sentencing. Excessive sentences are void only to the extent of the excess and require rectification through appropriate amendments by the original court.
In August 2001, Eide pleaded guilty to multiple felonies, including four class A felonies, a class B felony, and a class C felony, followed by two additional class A felonies in March 2002. Under North Dakota Century Code (N.D.C.C.) § 12.1-32-01, the maximum penalties for these felonies are 20 years for class A, 10 years for class B, and 5 years for class C. N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-06.1(3) mandates a minimum of five years supervised probation for felony sexual offenses. The trial court initially sentenced Eide to 11 years in prison with five years suspended, alongside five years of probation.
In June 2006, prior to his release, Eide was civilly committed as a sexually dangerous individual and was not discharged until December 27, 2010. Upon discharge, the district court modified five of Eide's original criminal judgments, extending his probation for five years beyond the initial term. Eide contends that the district court lacked authority to modify the judgments without good cause and sufficient notice, arguing he did not violate any probation conditions.
The State argues that the district court had the authority to modify Eide’s probation under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-07(6), which allows for modifications with proper notice and good cause. The State maintains that modifications are consistent with the rehabilitative goals of probation and that Eide's violation of probation conditions is not a prerequisite for such modifications. However, the record indicates that the court failed to provide Eide with the required notice before amending the judgments, which constitutes a violation of his due process rights. Notice must be given in advance to ensure adequate preparation for court proceedings, as established in relevant case law.
The State did not petition the district court to revoke Eide's probation for violations, nor did the court provide proper notice before amending five criminal judgments under N.D.C.C. 12.1-32-07(6) when discharging Eide from civil commitment on December 27, 2010. This lack of notice deprived Eide of the opportunity to be heard regarding the modifications to his probation, violating both statutory requirements and due process. Consequently, the district court's denial of Eide's motion to correct what he termed illegal sentences is reversed in part, as it improperly amended the judgments without notice. Although the district court could potentially have modified the probation term, any such modification must occur before the probation period ends, which had already lapsed in this case, thus barring a remand for correction. Eide's claim that the district court overstepped its authority by amending the judgments is countered by the fact that only five of eight judgments were affected, and his own request led to an extension of probation by five years on January 3, 2011, to avoid a violation due to unpaid fees. The court acknowledged the expiration of a sentence from a felony conviction prior to amending the other judgments, affirming that it did not err in denying Eide’s motion regarding that conviction. The judgment in case number 34-01-K-00852 remained unamended during this process.
On June 6, 2011, Eide filed a motion to correct illegal sentences under N.D.R.Crim. P. 35(a), claiming the district court improperly amended original judgments in its December 27, 2010, order, despite his assertion that he had committed no probation violations and had paid all fines in full. His motion contradicted his January 3, 2011, petition for a five-year probation extension due to his inability to timely pay court-imposed fees from the original judgments. Additionally, the district court did not amend the judgments in case number 34-01-K-00352 during the December 27, 2010, modifications. As a result, Eide's claim that the district court overstepped its authority and imposed an illegal sentence was undermined by his own actions and the court’s prior decisions. The January 3, 2011, order extending Eide’s probation remains effective, confirming his ongoing probation status. The court affirmed the denial of Eide’s motion concerning three judgments in cases 34-01-K-00163 and 34-01-K-00352, as they were not amended in the December 27, 2010, order. However, it reversed part of the decision because the district court failed to provide Eide with notice before modifying his probationary period in five judgments. The concurrence included Justices Gerald W. Vande Walle, Daniel J. Crothers, Mary Muehlen Maring, and Carol Ronning Kapsner.
