State v. Laughlin

by
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court summarily denying Defendant's pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence and pro se motion to withdraw his plea filed more than a decade after Defendant's felony-murder conviction, holding that the district court did not err when it considered the State's written responses to Defendant's motions without appointing counsel to represent him.The State filed written responses to Defendant's motions, arguing that the district court could summarily deny the motions without appointing counsel for Defendant, that his sentencing challenge fell outside the scope of an illegal sentence, and that his plea withdrawal motion was untimely and failed to show excusable neglect. The district court summarily denied the motions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's statutory right to counsel was not triggered for either motion because the district court did not find a substantial issue of law or triable issue of fact in them; and (2) summary denial was appropriate as to the two motions. View "State v. Laughlin" on Justia Law