State v. Eggleston, 2021 ND 120

Alex Eggleston was convicted of murder and possession of a firearm by a felon and initially sentenced to life with possibility of parole.
The district court amended the judgment to calculate remaining life expectancy using a 2017 table; the Supreme Court remanded, instructing use of the 2002 table.
On remand the court scheduled multiple resentencing hearings; Eggleston failed to timely file briefing as directed by the court.
On the day of the final resentencing hearing Eggleston filed a brief arguing the statute and Administrative Rule 51 were unconstitutionally vague and asked for factual findings on life-expectancy factors; the State said it was unprepared to respond.
The district court did not address the constitutional challenge; it recalculated Eggleston’s life expectancy using the 2002 table and entered an amended judgment.
On appeal Eggleston raised the vagueness/due-process challenge and requested remand for specific factual findings; the Supreme Court held the constitutional claim was not properly preserved and affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-09.1 and N.D. Sup. Ct. Admin. R. 51 are unconstitutionally vague as applied	The claim was not timely raised below; State lacked notice and opportunity to respond so issue is unpreserved	The statute and rule produce an unconstitutionally vague sentence; life-expectancy factors implicate due process and should be pleaded/found	Not preserved on appeal; court declined to consider the constitutional challenge and affirmed
Whether the case should be remanded for specific factual findings on life-expectancy factors	No; district court properly applied the 2002 life-expectancy table on remand	Eggleston sought remand for particularized findings about the factors used in the calculation	Not preserved/not developed below; court affirmed amended judgment

State v. Eggleston, 940 N.W.2d 645 (prior appeal instructing remand to apply the 2002 life-expectancy table)
State v. Kalmio, 846 N.W.2d 752 (issues must be raised below to be preserved for appeal)
State v. Cain, 806 N.W.2d 597 (same preservation principle cited)
State v. Smestad, 681 N.W.2d 811 (issues not adequately developed at trial are not considered on appeal)
State v. Kieper, 747 N.W.2d 497 (constitutional issues not raised in district court will not be considered for first time on appeal)