State v. Eagleman

Summary

The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Eagleman’s amended motion seeking correction of an illegal sentence under Rule 35(a). Because he expressly invoked Rule 35(a), had not previously sought post-conviction relief, and did not brief any entitlement to Rule 35(a) relief on appeal, the court upheld the district court’s decision not to reclassify the motion as a post-conviction application. The court also held that his ineffective-assistance, factual-basis, coerced-plea, and due-process claims were collateral attacks outside Rule 35(a) and were properly summarily dismissed.