Crosby v. Warden

Summary

The New Hampshire Supreme Court held that the petitioner’s 1992 sentences were presumptively concurrent because the sentencing orders did not state that they were consecutive. It concluded that a 1996 sentencing agreement converting the sentences to consecutive terms was unlawful and reversed the denial of the petitioner’s first habeas corpus petition. The appeal concerning the dismissal of a subsequent ineffective-assistance claim was dismissed as moot.

Holdings

1. A defendant's failure to object to a sentence when imposed does not bar a later extraordinary writ challenging the legality of the sentence; on this record, Crosby's agreement to and delay in challenging the 1996 sentence did not preclude review.
2. When a sentencing order covering multiple counts or indictments is silent about whether sentences run concurrently or consecutively, the sentences are presumed to run concurrently.
3. The 1996 sentencing agreement unlawfully converted the previously concurrent sentences into consecutive sentences because a defendant cannot confer on a court, by agreement, authority to impose an illegal sentence.
4. The appeal from the dismissal without prejudice of the subsequent ineffective-assistance-of-counsel petition was moot in light of the court's disposition of the underlying illegal-sentence claim.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Crosby waived his challenge to the legality of the 1996 sentencing agreement by agreeing to the sentence and failing to seek review for seven years.
2. Whether the 1992 sentences were concurrent when the sentencing orders were silent as to concurrency or consecutiveness.
3. Whether a 1996 plea or sentencing agreement could lawfully convert the previously concurrent sentences into consecutive sentences.
4. Whether the appeal from dismissal without prejudice of the subsequent ineffective-assistance-of-counsel petition was moot after reversal of the underlying habeas ruling.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded