Mayo v. State

Summary

The Court affirmed the denial of Mayo’s second motion to correct his sentence. It held that his challenge to the discrepancy between the plea agreement and the habitual-offender motion concerned the manner in which his sentence was imposed and therefore was subject to the applicable 90-day limitation period. Because Mayo had conceded his eligibility for habitual-offender sentencing, no extraordinary circumstances justified consideration of his untimely and repetitive motion.