State v. Henderson

Summary

The court affirmed the denial of the defendant’s second motion to correct an illegal sentence. It held that the sentencing judge implicitly found that an enhanced sentence would best serve the public interest, even though she did not recite the statutory language verbatim, and that the appellate court could affirm on that alternative ground sua sponte. The court distinguished decisions involving an undisputed failure to make any public-interest finding and rejected any requirement of a talismanic recital of statutory words.