Ballheim v. Settles

Summary

The court held that Ballheim alleged sufficient facts to require issuance of a habeas corpus writ and a hearing because the original judgment separately imposed an unenhanced sentence for possession and a void sentence for the nonexistent crime of being a habitual criminal. The later nunc pro tunc order was void because it substantively increased the possession sentence rather than correcting a clerical error. The court further held that resentencing Ballheim after he had served the unenhanced sentence would implicate double jeopardy because he had a legitimate expectation of finality. The court reversed and remanded with directions to issue the writ and conduct the required hearing.