State v. Lyon, 938 N.W.2d 908

In October 2015 Lyon barricaded himself in a home and fired at police; he was tried and a jury convicted him of attempted murder, terrorizing, terrorizing–domestic violence, and illegal possession of a firearm.
Before trial the State sought habitual-offender treatment under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-09.
At the first sentencing the court imposed life with the possibility of parole; an amended judgment later designated Lyon a habitual offender.
This Court in a prior appeal (State v. Lyon) held the first amended sentence was illegal because, absent habitual-offender treatment, the maximum for attempted murder was 20 years; the case was remanded for resentencing.
At a second sentencing (different judge) the court found Lyon a habitual offender and again sentenced him to life with possibility of parole; Lyon appealed, arguing (1) insufficient evidence for attempted murder and (2) the resentencing judge failed adequately to consider statutory sentencing factors.
The Supreme Court declined to revisit sufficiency of the evidence under the law-of-the-case doctrine and held the resentencing judge adequately considered the record and statutory factors; the amended criminal judgment was affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the attempted murder conviction is supported by sufficient evidence	State: trial evidence supports convictions and issue is not within scope of remand	Lyon: evidence insufficient; requested ballistics would show he did not shoot at officers	Barred by law of the case; insufficiency claim not considered on remand
Whether resentencing was illegal for failing to consider N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-04 factors	State: sentencing judge reviewed this Court’s opinion, the PSI, the record, and properly considered factors; life with parole is appropriate	Lyon: judge declined to reevaluate trial evidence and failed to analyze statutory sentencing factors, so resentencing was an abuse of discretion	Court concluded judge reviewed the record and PSI, considered the factors (explicit citation not required), did not abuse discretion; sentence affirmed

State v. Lyon, 921 N.W.2d 441 (N.D. 2019) (prior appeal finding original sentence illegal and remanding for resentencing)
Frisk v. Frisk, 719 N.W.2d 332 (N.D. 2006) (explains law-of-the-case doctrine)
State ex rel. N.D. Dep’t of Labor v. Riemers, 779 N.W.2d 649 (N.D. 2010) (party cannot relitigate issues resolved or that could have been raised earlier)
State v. Steinbach, 575 N.W.2d 193 (N.D. 1998) (sentencing factors in statute are advisory and not exclusive)
State v. Gonzalez, 799 N.W.2d 402 (N.D. 2011) (court need not explicitly cite statutory factors to show consideration)
State v. Halton, 535 N.W.2d 734 (N.D. 1995) (recognizes that explicit factor-by-factor recitation is not required when the record shows consideration)