Thompson v. State

Summary

The court dismissed Thompson’s appeal from the denial of his petition to correct an illegal sentence and declared his motion for an extension of briefing time moot. It held that his allegations concerned trial, constitutional, or postconviction errors rather than a facially illegal sentence, and that his sentences were within the statutory range. The court also concluded that any claims cognizable under Rule 37.1 were barred because they should have been raised in his prior petition.