Lopez v. State

Summary

The Court affirmed the denial of Lopez’s motion challenging his sentence under Rule 35(a). Although the Superior Court treated the filing as an untimely sentence-reduction motion, the Court held on alternative grounds that the sentences were not illegal because they were statutorily authorized, did not violate double jeopardy, and contained no ambiguity or other qualifying defect. Lopez’s remaining challenges concerned the manner in which the sentences were imposed and were untimely.