AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant appealed pro se from a district court order that denied his motion to set aside a 2001 judgment, where he was sentenced to forty years, with all but nine years suspended. The Defendant believed at the time of entering his plea that his total sentence was limited to nine years. He filed a motion to amend the sentence in 2012, which was denied for being filed beyond the deadline.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the total sentence was understood to be limited to nine years at the time of the plea and sought to amend the sentence.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's motion to set aside a 2001 judgment was timely.
• Whether the Defendant complied with the procedural requirements for filing a notice of appeal.
• Whether exceptional circumstances exist that would warrant overlooking procedural defects in the appeal process.

Disposition

• The appeal was affirmed, denying the motion to set aside the 2001 judgment.

Reasons

• JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge (RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge, LINDA M. VANZI, Judge concurring): The court proposed to dismiss the appeal due to the failure to file a timely notice of appeal in the proper court. The Defendant filed the notice of appeal in the Court of Appeals instead of the district court, violating the rules that require filing with the district court clerk. Despite the Defendant's argument of exceptional circumstances due to the district court not receiving or filing the notice of appeal, the court found no basis to overlook the procedural defects. Additionally, the court affirmed the district court's ruling that the Defendant's motion to amend was untimely under Rule 5-801(B), as it was directed at his original 2001 sentence and filed well outside the ninety-day period allowed. The court declined to construe the motion as a habeas appeal, stating that if the Defendant seeks relief from the 2001 judgment, he needs to proceed under the provisions of Rule 5-802.