State v. Clark

¶49 I concur with the Court’s resolution of Issue 1 but believe the Court has erred by allowing the District Court to reopen and reconsider Clark’s sentence after remand.

¶50 The State argues that the sentencing issues Clark raised on remand, and now before us in the present appeal, are not properly before this Court because Clark did not raise them in his first appeal. According to the State, the limited purpose of our remand was for the District Court to reconsider Clark’s motion for a new trial in light of our holding in Clark I. Thus, the State argues, Clark was not entitled to challenge…