Boyce v. State

Summary

The Court affirmed denial of Boyce’s motion to correct his sentence, although it held that the motion was not subject to the ninety-day limitation applicable to ordinary sentence challenges. The Section 4204(k) day-for-day requirement was authorized because the nonsuspended VOP imprisonment did not exceed the balance of the previously suspended sentence. Boyce’s consecutive-sentence claim was untimely, and his sentence-credit claim was not preserved because he did not raise it below.