State v. Eagleman
2013 ND 101
N.D.2013Background
- Matthew Eagleman pled guilty in 2002 to a class A misdemeanor (harboring a runaway) and a class A felony (gross sexual imposition) and received suspended sentences with probation.
- His probation was revoked multiple times (2002, 2008, 2011), producing successive resentencings that included periods of imprisonment and probation; by 2011 he had received a 20-year sentence with portions to be served and portions suspended.
- The State filed a N.D.R.Crim.P. 35 motion in 2012 arguing the 2008 and 2011 resentencings were illegal under State v. Perales and State v. Stavig because a defendant who already served two probationary terms may not be resentenced to a third probationary term.
- The district court agreed and, treating the earlier sentences as illegal in their entirety, resentenced Eagleman to 20 years in prison with credit for time served (including time in the State Hospital).
- Eagleman appealed, arguing (1) the court exceeded its authority by increasing his imprisonment and (2) the court relied on an impermissible factor by labeling him a "high risk sex offender" and a "danger to the community."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court exceeded its authority by correcting an illegal sentence under Rule 35 and imposing a harsher term | State: Court properly corrected illegal probationary terms and could impose any sentence available at initial sentencing | Eagleman: Rule 35 does not permit increasing a sentence; he should not serve more imprisonment than previously imposed | Court: R35 allows correction of illegal sentence; Garvin/Bryan (prohibiting increases) do not apply to illegal sentences; court may impose any sentence available at initial sentencing |
| Whether the court could increase the actual imprisonment portion rather than merely excise illegal probation terms | State: Illegal probation invalidated entire sentence, so court could impose a different lawful sentence including greater imprisonment | Eagleman: He is entitled to the originally imposed seven-year actual imprisonment and should be released after serving it | Court: Periods of imprisonment and probation are interrelated; illegal probation invalidates the whole sentence so resentencing to statutory maximum was permissible |
| Whether the district court relied on an impermissible factor (finding Eagleman a "high risk sex offender"/danger) | State: Findings supported by the case history and prosecutor's statements; judge had extensive familiarity with Eagleman’s violations | Eagleman: No evidence at the resentencing hearing supported those findings | Court: Judge may rely on facts learned while presiding; findings were not impermissible or substantially relied upon unlawfully |
| Whether the new 20-year term exceeded statutory limits | State: Sentence is within statutory maximum for class A felony | Eagleman: Challenged the increase as unlawful | Court: 20 years is within N.D.C.C. limits for class A felony; sentence lawful |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Perales, 820 N.W.2d 119 (N.D. 2012) (holding a defendant who has served two probationary terms cannot be resentenced to a third probationary term)
- State v. Stavig, 711 N.W.2d 183 (N.D. 2006) (same principle limiting successive probationary terms)
- State v. Garvin, 329 N.W.2d 621 (N.D. 1983) (Rule 35 cannot be used to increase a lawful sentence — distinguishable where original sentence is illegal)
- Peltier v. State, 657 N.W.2d 238 (N.D. 2003) (trial court may impose a harsher sentence upon probation revocation; illegal probation can permit resentencing to a different lawful term)