Sentence Imposed in Violation of Estrada is Not an Illegal Sentence

The Court of Appeals has reversed the granting of a Rule 35 sentence based upon an Estrada violation. The district judge granted the motion, then invited the pro se defendant to disqualify him from the case, and then assigned the case to another judge who gave the defendant a longer sentence! On appeal, the defendant defended the granting of the Rule 35 motion even though he got more time because he used the vacation of his sentence to file a Rule 33 motion to withdraw his guilty plea. On appeal, he challenged the denial of his Rule 33 motion (and also the imposition of the greater sentence).

The COA held that an Estrada violation does not result in an illegal sentence and thus may not be challenged under that portion of Rule 35. The Court then found that the Rule 33 motion was untimely because the case was final, i.e., since the Rule 35 motion was not properly granted, the time to file a Rule 33 motion had not restarted. It then found that Mr. Peterson's claim of vindictive resentencing was moot as it had reinstated the original sentence. So, Mr. Peterson ended up in the same place he began.

State v. Peterson, http://www.isc.idaho.gov/opinions/Peterson,%20Robert.pdf