Peo v. Moore-Vivour ( 2024 )

<div><div><div><div id="pdf-container" style="width: 782px">
<div id="pf1" data-page-no="1">
<div><div>
<div>23CA1687 Peo v Moore-Vivour 10-17-2024 </div>
<div> </div>
<div>COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Court of Appeals No. 23CA1687 </div>
<div>Arapahoe County District Court No. 09CR810 </div>
<div>Honorable David N. Karpel, Judge </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>The People of the State of Colorado, </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Plaintiff-Appellee, </div>
<div> </div>
<div>v. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>David Moore-Vivour, </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Defendant-Appellant. </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>ORDER AFFIRMED </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Division VII </div>
<div>Opinion by JUDGE TOW </div>
<div>Pawar and Schutz, JJ., concur </div>
<div> </div>
<div>NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) </div>
<div>Announced October 17, 2024 </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, <span>Em</span>my A. <span>Langley, </span>Senior Assistant Attorney </div>
<div>General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Brownstone P.A., George Thomas, Winter Park, Florida, for Defendant-</div>
<div>Appellant</div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf2" data-page-no="2">
<div><div>
<div>1 </div>
<div>¶ 1<span> </span><span>Defendant, David Moore-Vivour<span>, appeals the district court’s </span></span>
</div>
<div>order denying his Crim. P. <span>35</span> postconviction motion.<span> </span>We affirm. </div>
<div>I.<span> <span>Background </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 2<span> </span><span>In November 2009, a jury found Moore-Vivour guilty of two </span>
</div>
<div>felonies <span>—</span> attempted second degree murder and first deg<span></span>ree assault </div>
<div>—<span> and four misdemeanors </span>—<span> two counts of third degree a<span></span>ssault, </span>
</div>
<div>criminal mischief, and obstructing telephone service. <span></span>In January </div>
<div>2010, the court sentenced him to a total of thirty years in t<span></span>he </div>
<div>custody of the Department of Corrections (DOC). Specifically,<span></span> the </div>
<div>court imposed concurrent twenty-five-year sentences on the </div>
<div>felonies, two-year jail sentences on the two misdemeanor <span></span>assault </div>
<div>charges to be served concurrent with each other but <span></span>consecutive to </div>
<div>the felony sentences, and eighteen-month sentences on the </div>
<div>remaining misdemeanors, consecutive to each other and to all <span></span>other </div>
<div>sentences. The original mittimus provided that the jail sentences </div>
<div>would be served in the DOC. </div>
<div>¶ 3<span> </span><span>A month later, on its own motion, the court amended M<span></span>oore-</span>
</div>
<div>Vivour’s sentence such that the aggregate five<span>-year jail sentence for </span>
</div>
<div>the misdemeanor offenses were to be served in jail, to be f<span></span>ollowed by </div>
<div>the concurrent twenty-five-year felony sentences in the custody of </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf3" data-page-no="3">
<div><div>
<div>2 </div>
<div>the DOC. The amendment did not increase the total numbe<span></span>r of </div>
<div>years of the sentence; it only changed the location where Mo<span></span>ore-</div>
<div>Vivour would serve the misdemeanor sentences. On appeal, a </div>
<div>division of this court affirmed Moore-<span>Vivour’s convictions. <span>People v. </span></span>
</div>
<div>Moore-Vivour<span>, (Colo. App. No. 10CA0466, Apr. 11, 2013) (n<span></span>ot </span>
</div>
<div>published pursuant to C.A.R. 35(f)). Moore-Vivour did not raise any </div>
<div>issues related to the amended mittimus in his direct appeal. </div>
<div>¶ 4<span> </span><span>In March 2016, Moore-Vivour filed a Crim. P. 35(c) motion <span></span>for </span>
</div>
<div>relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. After an evidentia<span></span>ry </div>
<div>hearing, the district court denied this motion, and a<span></span> division of this </div>
<div>court affirmed that decision. <span>People v. Moore-Vivour</span>, (Colo. Ap<span></span>p. No. </div>
<div>19CA0857, Aug. 19, 2021) (not published pursuant to C.A.<span></span>R. 35(e)). </div>
<div>Later, Moore-Vivour filed a Crim. P. 35(a) motion asserting<span></span> that the </div>
<div>five-year sentence for his misdemeanor charges was illegal un<span></span>der </div>
<div>section 18-1.3-501(1)(c.5), C.R.S. 2024. The district court </div>
<div>summarily denied Moore-<span>Vivour’s request for relief. </span> Moore-Vivou<span></span>r </div>
<div>did not appeal that ruling. </div>
<div>¶ 5<span> </span><span>After discovering that his presentencing confinement<span></span> credit </span>
</div>
<div>(PSCC) was only being applied to one felony count, Moore-Vivour </div>
<div>filed a motion to amend his mittimus to accurately reflect t<span></span>he </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf4" data-page-no="4">
<div><div>
<div>3 </div>
<div>application of his PSCC to both felony charges. In February 2<span></span>023, </div>
<div>the district court granted this motion and amended the <span></span>mittimus to </div>
<div>correctly apply the PSCC to both felony counts. </div>
<div>¶ 6<span> </span><span>After the court revised his mittimus, Moore-Vivour filed a pro </span>
</div>
<div>se <span>Crim. P. 35(a) motion, and then subsequently filed <span></span>an amended </span>
</div>
<div>motion through counsel. In the amended motion, Moo<span></span>re-Vivour </div>
<div>identified two issues. First, he contended that the district <span></span>court </div>
<div>violated his constitutional right to be present when it <span></span>amended his </div>
<div>mittimus in 2023, without giving him the opportunity <span></span>to be present. </div>
<div>Second, Moore-Vivour re-asserted his contention that his <span></span>combined </div>
<div>sentence of five years for his misdemeanor crimes was illegal unde<span></span>r </div>
<div>section 18-1.3-501(1)(c.5). The district court denied <span></span>both claims. </div>
<div>¶ 7<span> </span><span>This appeal followed. </span>
</div>
<div>II.<span> <span>Right to Be Present </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 8<span> </span><span>Moore-Vivour claims his constitutional right to be present at </span>
</div>
<div>all critical stages of the criminal proceeding was violated when the </div>
<div>district court amended his mittimus. We disagree. </div>
<div>A.<span> <span>Standard of Review </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 9<span> </span><span>As a threshold matter, we note that though Moore-Vivour </span>
</div>
<div>styles this claim as falling under Crim. P. 35(a) <span>—</span> and the distri<span></span>ct </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf5" data-page-no="5">
<div><div>
<div>4 </div>
<div>court analyzed it as such <span>—</span> the argument raises a constitutional </div>
<div>claim and thus is more properly cognizable under Crim. <span></span>P. 35(c). </div>
<div>¶ 10<span> </span><span>The substance of a postconviction motion controls its </span>
</div>
<div>designation as a Crim. P. 35(a) or 35(c) matter. <span>People v. Collier</span><span>, </span>
</div>
<div>151 P.3d 668, 670 (Colo. App. 2006). </div>
<div>¶ 11<span> <span>“Motions under Crim. P.<span> 35(c) are the proper postconviction </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>route in which to challenge convictions or sentences as </div>
<div>unconstitutional.” <span>Id<span>.</span></span><span> <span>We review de novo a postconviction Crim P. </span></span>
</div>
<div>35(c) motion. <span>People v. Taylor</span>, 2018 COA 175, ¶ 8. </div>
<div>B.<span> <span>Analysis </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 12<span> </span><span>Moore-Vivour claims his constitutional right to be present was </span>
</div>
<div>violated on two occasions. The first alleged violation took pla<span></span>ce in </div>
<div>February 2010, when the district court amended Moore-<span>Vivour’s </span>
</div>
<div>mittimus to reflect a five-year jail sentence for his misdemeanor </div>
<div>offenses with the remainder to be served <span>—</span> consecutive to the jail </div>
<div>sentence <span>—</span> in the custody of the DOC. The second alleged vi<span></span>olation </div>
<div>took place in February 2023, when the district court amend<span></span>ed </div>
<div>Moore-<span>Vivour’s mittimus to accurately reflect the appli<span>cation of his </span></span>
</div>
<div>PSCC to both felony counts. </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf6" data-page-no="6">
<div><div>
<div>5 </div>
<div>¶ 13<span> </span><span>To the extent that Moore-Vivour contends that the amendment </span>
</div>
<div>of his mittimus in February 2010 was a violation of his </div>
<div>constitutional rights, this claim is both untimely and successiv<span></span>e. It </div>
<div>is untimely because it was filed well outside of the time permitt<span></span>ed </div>
<div>for postconviction challenges of misdemeanor convictions an<span></span>d </div>
<div>sentences. § 16-5-402(1), C.R.S. 2024. It is successive becaus<span></span>e </div>
<div>neither Moore-<span>Vivour’s direct appeal nor his previously <span></span>filed Crim. </span>
</div>
<div>P. 35(c) claim included this challenge. <span>Taylor</span>, ¶ 17 (holding that </div>
<div>Crim. P. 35(c)(3)(VII) bars postconviction claims that <span></span>could have </div>
<div>been presented in a previous proceeding). </div>
<div>¶ 14<span> </span><span>We therefore only address Moore-<span>Vivour’s argument that the </span></span>
</div>
<div>district court’s amendment of his mittimus in February 2023 was <span></span>a </div>
<div>violation of his constitutional rights. </div>
<div>1.<span> <span>Applicable Law </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 15<span> </span><span>A defendant has the right to be present at all critical phases of </span>
</div>
<div>a criminal proceeding. <span>People v. Garcia</span>, 251 P.3d 1152, 1156 (C<span></span>olo. </div>
<div>App. 2010). This right is guaranteed by due process <span></span>“if the </div>
<div>fundamental fairness of the proceeding would be undermined <span></span>by </div>
<div>the defendant<span>’s absence.” <span>People v. Isom</span></span>, 140 P.3d 100, 104 (<span></span>Colo. </div>
<div>App. 2005)<span>, </span><span>aff’d</span>, 2017 CO 110. Therefore, for due process </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf7" data-page-no="7">
<div><div>
<div>6 </div>
<div>purposes, a defendant<span>’</span>s presence is unnecessary if it <span>“would be </span>
</div>
<div>useless or only slightly beneficial.” <span>People v. Gallegos<span>, 226 P.3<span></span>d </span></span>
</div>
<div>1112, 1120 (Colo. App. 2009). </div>
<div>¶ 16<span> </span><span>An order that requires the resentencing of a defendant <span></span>triggers </span>
</div>
<div>their constitutional right to be present because “[a] sent<span></span>encing </div>
<div>hearing is a critical stage of a criminal proceeding.” <span>People v. Fritt<span></span>s<span>, </span></span>
</div>
<div>2014 COA 103, ¶ 9 (quoting <span>People v. Munsey</span>, 232 P.3d 113, 1<span></span>25 </div>
<div>(Colo. App. 2009)). </div>
<div>2.<span> <span>Application </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 17<span> </span><span>Moore-Vivour contends the 2023 mittimus amendment<span></span> was a </span>
</div>
<div>critical stage in the criminal proceeding because it amounte<span></span>d to a </div>
<div>resentencing. <span>Cf. Fritts</span>, ¶ 9 (noting that an order that <span></span>would result </div>
<div>in the defendant having to be resentenced would trigg<span></span>er the </div>
<div>entitlement to counsel because sentencing is a critical stage). <span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 18<span> </span><span>The crux of Moore-<span>Vivour’s argument rests on the holdings of </span></span>
</div>
<div>two cases. In both cases, the court imposed new sentences t<span></span>hat </div>
<div>impacted the amount of time defendants would be incarcerate<span></span>d and </div>
<div>did so without affording the defendant notice or the opportunit<span></span>y to </div>
<div>be present.<span> </span><span>See People v. Emig</span><span>, </span>493 P.2d 368, 369 (Colo. 1972) </div>
<div>(finding a violation of constitutional rights occurred where the trial </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf8" data-page-no="8">
<div><div>
<div>7 </div>
<div>court amended <span>defendant’s </span>sentence to state that his jail sentence </div>
<div>would be served upon release from prison); <span>People v. Renfrow<span></span><span>, <span>605 </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>P.2d 915, 916 (Colo. 1980) <span>(finding a violation of a defendant’s </span>
</div>
<div>constitutional rights when the sentence was reduced in his </div>
<div>absence)<span>. <span> </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 19<span> </span><span>But Moore-<span>Vivour’s argument misunderstands the </span></span>
</div>
<div>fundamental difference between an amendment of a mittimus t<span></span>o </div>
<div>reflect presentence confinement and a resentencing. The trial c<span></span>ourt </div>
<div>is required to note the correct presentence confinement <span></span>credit on </div>
<div>the mittimus.<span> </span><span>People v. Ostuni</span>, 58 P.3d 531, 533 (Colo. 2002)<span>; <span>see </span></span>
</div>
<div>also<span> <span>Beecroft v. People</span>, 874 P.2d 1041, 1045 n.12 (Colo. 1<span></span>994) </span>
</div>
<div>(“<span>When a defendant is sentenced to the DOC, the court does not </span>
</div>
<div>have discretion to grant or den<span>y </span>confinement credit; the sentencing </div>
<div>court must simply note if the defendant is entitled to confinement </div>
<div>credit and if he is, note the <span>amount of the credit.”)</span>. Thus, amen<span></span>ding </div>
<div>the mittimus to accurately reflect the correct presentence </div>
<div>confinement does not <span>alter</span> the sentence but, rather, merely </div>
<div>correctly restates it. </div>
<div>¶ 20<span> <span>“[A] <span>mittimus may be corrected in the defendant</span><span>’</span><span>s absence </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>without running afoul of his right to be present at sentencing.”<span> </span>
</div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf9" data-page-no="9">
<div>
<img alt="" src="https://icbg.s3.amazonaws.com/media/MM2/wHB/MM2wHB%2BaD/bTEKDGIlHfurinIDkMwCcAKfpqdrLXt8Ebo%3D?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIA5PHC3MTPYS3MZB4U&amp;Expires=1729526586&amp;Signature=WYpNOdZ%2BPTw3pZlwXPY3Y4VPpa0%3D&amp;x-amz-security-token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjECcaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJHMEUCIETK3jhEwpt1iK9Au27rAaaq2E2dZIVsQStd85hnNlNSAiEA4Yhv%2F6oEc166jTkzMr99KstCBtccVicbf5miy3GKd94quwUIkP%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FARAAGgw5MjYwNDEyMDM5MzUiDLOjlTsYyEfHkHwTVyqPBfIcDIQnt6bst4AsAVa5EvDJ2VkNrtTyo3gnYmhbW6GAVQ0k9SS%2BWegb7JXenU2QATkA2QzZ9Fz8mBYoLglm2Nz4DJ%2BgCMoqcfOCVKg9%2F3dEnohYs2Ig8B6XK7i0TMsGy%2BE4WOA9t5YQIjsDRhFfxrnaDCmUnO70x3xresKYta61rt9HAra9hE80mwnqss0zE%2FnMnuOrtYg6W%2BHo2MccN5OU58LsOk85RWLWr2OBR%2FIFiGfjwZJJxmD%2FuI7LNYuqfjXBwIw8Mx5XBBklnfQSK0L0HHhHaqsba7Ay7SgKWITBgji0EnGC3I7aw0B8RlC5IiBnqzVZpIiWGk%2FLjJr22lPg5qkMjXi6ns6siaiBXA%2BKFAhi%2B1%2BxFnQLCiIM81TMF%2FIJ%2BXoJHT4mDMumB2IjG7mVw3kT90sJUcSqSEdC6%2FnbL4sjzjhsA69x9REV1Yo6BxjWAJYU8VqMQ3vwhnwvoQ1VwzpPmJWcROdtXYv9%2FF%2FbQD%2FKBJatAS%2FFq%2FFZz%2F7PXTfc3mPCuJPTJNZ0hFw9j%2B%2B7PNXLI0spdR6c4V7i27oMiWbxSL5KmmLsM%2BnOh0gRmbD%2Bl%2FLbMb1AX8QSfPztztLoLtW3tTRE%2FjOHX3U7eBryQhAU3Cc3ybgUIFkq7NzwcIS7tnloyWMfiJ1BelmE3RAdGTd9akLfPU7hYQM6NF%2BHy%2FkspVtA1Z43jZJEcYLvqwJt1Cy6u9MyC6wQH4YbDN6y7adwgnxD1P5c6ZRbAQBQ7yL9uHJi82xC3XeqpoR%2BCKAKORjkSrnUF3pC68dko9qCLdg8sZq0vP9ykrXoFLgk7KmUOCpWrCsnaEZriRq5xfolLAaQAlxsqwypdCFaIa2SZ%2BpAZQvLTDBvrx5gD70wvcnZuAY6sQEiZaWjTwTo76lqxabaVELsowInX%2BKV%2BHjLWqOQFFh3%2F48jqGjCwMxJ632eg2yLX6RUFk8yQNDWzkgJJVdovKCFATZK8C%2F9WG1J4koB866NfDa8n0ayB5Z2fk4jq%2Bn4ch%2F4ktSxQOLcF6rxDuEvQjhx3XmMrW2ME1yPpgV4GHDSFxinAlOUsQ7o0Rb04s5cqyKHy4fHWYfs2GXG2H6RbyzVSOZBxNIAmdFCLdttW88oLtU%3D"><div>
<div>8 </div>
<div>People v. Nelson<span>, 9 P.3d 1177, 1178-79 (Colo. App. 200<span></span>0). Thus, </span>
</div>
<div>Moore-<span>Vivour’s argument fails.</span>
</div>
</div>
<div><div>1</div></div>
<div>
<div> </div>
<div>III.<span> <span>Maximum Aggregate Jail Time </span></span>
</div>
<div>A.<span> <span>Standard of Review </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 21<span> </span><span>Pursuant to Crim. P. 35(a), the court may correct an illegal </span>
</div>
<div>sentence at any time. <span>People v. Rockwell</span>, 125 P.3d 410, 414 (C<span></span>olo. </div>
<div>2005). “[A]n illegal sentence is one that is inconsistent <span></span>with the </div>
<div>terms specified by statutes.” <span>People v. Green<span>, 36 P.3d 125, 12<span></span>6 </span></span>
</div>
<div>(Colo. App. 2001). “The legality of a sentence is a questi<span></span>on of law </div>
<div>that we review de novo.” <span>People v. Bassford<span>, 2014 COA 15, ¶ <span></span>20. </span></span>
</div>
<div>B.<span> <span>Analysis </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 22<span> </span><span>Moore-Vivour claims that, under section 18-1.3-501(1)(c.5), </span>
</div>
<div>the “stacking” of his misdemeanor charges to create a combine<span></span>d </div>
<div>sentence of five years is illegal. We disagree. </div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div><div>1</div></div>
<div>
<div> Moore-Vivour contends, for the first time, in his reply brief t<span></span>hat </div>
<div>the court violated Crim. P. 43 when it amended the mittimus </div>
<div>without him present. Because it was first raised in his reply, this </div>
<div>argument is not properly before us, and we decline to address it<span></span>. </div>
<div>See People v. Cline<span>, 2022 COA 135, ¶ 75 n.3. </span>
</div>
</div>
<a href="#pf9" data-dest-detail='[9,"XYZ",69,154,null]'><div style="border-style:none;position:absolute;left:358.518889px;bottom:835.986111px;width:10.090000px;height:32.870000px;background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0.000001);"></div></a>
</div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pfa" data-page-no="a">
<div><div>
<div>9 </div>
<div>1.<span> <span>Applicable Law </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 23<span> <span>The “primary purpose [of statutory interpretation] is to </span></span>
</div>
<div>ascertain and give effect to the General Assembly’s intent<span></span>.” <span>Pineda-</span>
</div>
<div>Liberato v. People<span>, <span>2017 CO 95, ¶ 22<span>. “Constructions that defeat </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>the obvious legislative intent should be avoided . . . .” <span>People v. </span>
</div>
<div>Frazier<span>, 77 P.3d 838, 839 (Colo. App. 2003), </span>aff'd<span>, 90 P.3d 807 </span>
</div>
<div>(Colo. 2004). To begin, we evaluate the statute’s plain <span></span>meaning and </div>
<div>consider it within the context of the statute as a whole. <span></span> <span>Lewis v. </span>
</div>
<div>Taylor<span>, 2016 CO 48, ¶ 20. </span>
</div>
<div>2.<span> <span>Application </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 24<span> </span><span>Section 18-1.3-<span>501</span><span>(1)</span><span>(c.5) provides, “[t]he maximum </span></span>
</div>
<div>consecutive sentence to the county jail for misdemeanor crimes </div>
<div>charged in a single case is twenty-<span>four months.” In 2010, <span></span>the </span>
</div>
<div>district court sentenced Moore-Vivour to serve a combined tot<span></span>al of </div>
<div>five years for four misdemeanor convictions. Moore-Vivour </div>
<div>contends that under the current iteration of the law his <span></span>sentence is </div>
<div>three years longer than what is statutorily allowed. He c<span></span>orrectly </div>
<div>reads the current iteration of the statute but fails to recognize <span></span>that </div>
<div>his sentence is not governed by that language. </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pfb" data-page-no="b">
<div><div>
<div>10 </div>
<div>¶ 25<span> </span><span>The General Assembly enacted subsection (c.5) in 2021. </span>
</div>
<div>Ch. 462, sec. 186, § <span>18</span>-1.3-501(1)(c.5), 2021 Colo. S<span></span>ess. Laws </div>
<div>3170. In doing so, the legislature explicitly provided t<span></span>hat it “applies </div>
<div>to offenses committed on or after the applicable effective date <span></span>of this </div>
<div>act,” which was March 1, 2022. S<span>ec. 803, 2021 Colo. Sess. Laws at </span>
</div>
<div>3332<span>. “[When] the General Assembly indicates in an eff<span></span>ective date </span>
</div>
<div>clause that a statute shall apply prospectively, courts are boun<span></span>d by </div>
<div>that language.” <span>People v.<span> </span><span>Summers</span><span>, 208 P.3d 251, 257 (Colo. 2009).<span></span> </span></span>
</div>
<div>Because Moore-Vivour committed his offenses before the <span></span>effective </div>
<div>date of the twenty-four-month cap on jail sentences, t<span></span>he cap does </div>
<div>not apply to his sentence. Consequently, his sentence is not illegal.<span></span> </div>
<div>IV.<span> </span><span>Disposition </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 26<span> </span><span>The order is affirmed. </span>
</div>
<div>JUDGE PAWAR and JUDGE SCHUTZ concur. </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
</div></div></div></div>