State v. Elliott

SILAK, Judge.

In this appeal, Daniel Arthur Elliott asserts that the district court erroneously denied his two Rule 35 motions challenging the reasonableness and legality of his sentence. In his first Rule 35 motion, .Elliott asked the trial court to reduce his sentence, claiming that the sentence was excessive given his rehabilitative progress while in prison. After this motion was denied, Elliott submitted a second Rule 35 motion, arguing that his sentence was illegal because the district court lacked authority to order that his sentence be served consecutive to the sentence he was already…