 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[T] State v. Mignogna3/2/2004
on applied to all cases pending on direct review or not yet final at the time of its effective date. Mignogna did have an appeal in an unrelated post-conviction proceeding pending before this Court on the effective date of the amendment with regard to his third case, but there were no proceedings pending in the earlier cases.
Even if § 46-18-117, MCA, were applicable to Mignogna's case, Mignogna did not file a claim challenging the legality of his sentences within 120 days of their imposition and the District Court's authority under § 46-18-117, MCA, would be limited to correcting an erroneous sentence or disposition. However, Mignogna has not alleged that his sentences were factually erroneous. Hence, the District Court did not have the statutory authority to change Mignogna's sentences in the manner he requested even if the court were inclined to do so.
Accordingly, we hold that this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
JAMES C. NELSON
We Concur:
KARLA M. GRAY
W. WILLIAM LEAPHART
JIM REGNIER
JIM RICE
|